U.S., Israel Close Gaps on Issues

Scenes like this -- of Palestinian workers in Har Gilo -- are slated to end with the announcement of a West Bank settlement freeze. Photo by Kobi Gideon/Flash 90

Israel and the United States seem closer than they have been for months on two key issues: peacemaking with the Palestinians and Iranian nuclear ambitions.

The point was hammered home with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement of a 10-month freeze on building in West Bank settlements, coupled with the strong White House censure of Iran's plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants.

Still, important differences of nuance remain on both fronts. Israel would like to see more robust action on Iran without delay, and the United States wants Israel to make further substantial overtures to the Palestinians.

The latest escalation in tension between Iran and the international community came after the International Atomic Energy Agency demanded that the Islamic Republic immediately halt enrichment at a previously secret site near the holy city of Qom, and outgoing IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei declared that he could not confirm that Iran did not have a nuclear-weapons program.

The strongly worded IAEA motion of censure was endorsed by Russia and China, two powers that in the past have tended to steer clear of tough measures against Iran.

Iran responded with contempt.

Rather than close down the facility at Qom, it said that it would start building five new ones over the next few months, as well as accelerate plans for another five after that. The Iranian parliament urged reduced cooperation with IAEA inspectors, and there was even talk of Iran withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- moves that would give it a free hand to pursue a nuclear-weapons program without international scrutiny.

Israeli pundits say that the Iranian threats are intended to test international resolve in the hope of getting an improved offer from the United States and other major powers. Specifically, it wants permission to enrich uranium to industrial grade on Iranian soil rather than in France and Russia, which is was what Iranian negotiators originally had agreed to.

But this time, according to pundits, the Iranians may have miscalculated.

The clear White House warning that "time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program" could presage the end of President Barack Obama's attempt to engage Iran and the beginning of harsher sanctions that Netanyahu has long advocated -- with Russia and China aboard.

Indeed, when he first met Obama in 2007, before either man was in high office, Netanyahu pressed the case for strong economic sanctions against Iran. Obama, then a junior senator, picked up on this, and soon afterward sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking Nov. 29 at a news conference in his Jerusalem office Flash 90/JTA

During their latest meeting in Washington last month, Iran was again high on the agenda. Netanyahu told journalists that time would show the meeting to have been very significant -- he strongly emphasized the word "very" -- language some pundits took to imply that major understandings on the Iranian nuclear issue had been reached.

For now, the signs are that Obama and Netanyahu are very much on the same sanctions page, with slightly different views on the timing. The big question is what happens if sanctions fail.

Israeli pundits argue that Obama -- embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan -- will not want to open a third front against Iran, whereas Netanyahu is not ready to take any option, including the military one, off the table.

What is clear to both leaders is that if either decides to attack Iran, Israel will become a target for Iranian retaliation; hence, the huge joint military exercise in the Negev in late October, testing Israeli and American anti-missile defense systems.

On the Palestinian front, the Americans welcomed Netanyahu's building freeze as going beyond anything previous Israeli governments had done. But at the same time, the Americans made it clear that they would have liked to have seen more -- for example, a freeze that did not exclude eastern Jerusalem, public buildings and housing units already started -- because the object of the exercise was to get the Palestinians on board for peace talks, and only a full freeze might have achieved that aim.

The Americans are also pressing Netanyahu to free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners outside the framework of the impending deal for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli corporal held by Hamas for more than three years, because of the bitter rivalry between the secular Fatah organization and the more militant Hamas. The thinking is that the standing of the U.S.-backed Fatah leader, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, could be weakened by the planned release of about 1,000 prisoners to Hamas in return for Shalit. Releasing large numbers of Fatah prisoners to Abbas would help prevent him from losing face.

The main U.S. goal, though, is to revive the stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and here the administration believes that Netanyahu could have done more -- for example, by agreeing to resume talks where his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, left off, or giving the Palestinians a clearer idea of the contours of a final peace deal.

The way forward now could be new U.S. bridging proposals that do exactly that. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says that Netanyahu's settlement freeze has made this possible, and that the United States will soon present the parties with something along these lines.

The Americans, however, are well aware that with Hamas in control of Gaza, and with conflicting Israeli and Palestinian bottom lines on all the core issues, the chances of success are not high. On the other hand, the prize to be won is huge. Success would mean a pacified Middle East with enhanced American influence and prestige.

The question is: Will Obama be prepared to take the risk of likely failure, with the attendant consequences for his and America's international standing? u