Gen James Jones appearing today at ABC’s “This Week”The Obama administration today clearly linked ending Iranian nuclear program and its threat against Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state. US National Security Advisor James Jones said in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could diminish the existential threat posed by Iran.
"We understand Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution. This is a very strategic issue. It's extremely important. And we're looking forward to having a good, constructive dialogue with our Israeli friends when they visit Washington in the next seven or eight days," Jones said [ABC, 10 May 2009]. [Israeli Premier Bibi Netanyahu will be visiting Washington next week.]
General Jones first acknowledges Iranian nuclear program as “an existential threat” against Israel, and then states the administration’s view that the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would create favorable conditions to “diminish” the threat. The Obama administration is apparently holding the acceptance of the two-state solution by Israel as a precondition to move against Iran’s nuclear program.
On March 3 the New York Times reported:
ReplyDeletePresident Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.Only a screwed up mind would offer to give up doing what one should not (and probably could not get away with anyway) in order to obtain in exchange a grandiose advantage. Americans are like a bully offering not to rape a girl if they receive tons of money in exchange of depriving themselves of the criminal act.
Only when the Treasury is broke and cannot borrow any more will there be change. That day is not too far off. As long as we can borrow nothing will change. The elites, both financial and political which are one and the same, cannot be dislodged or forced to change as long as they can disburse money. Money they don't actually have.
Bid your time Iran!
Disarment is only for weak nations
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that it is quite nonsensical for Obama to offer up America's Iran policy as a carrot to entice the Zionist regime to adopt a two state solution.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, all sections of the Israeli spectrum have been working diligently for the past two decades to makes sure such a solution is impossible. This is especially true of the incumbents of the current government. For the Zionists,the value of eliminating Iran's nuclear program is small to sanctity of their Racial policies. Why make the offer if it will never be taken seriously, even as a starting point for negotions?
Secondly, Obama has shown over the past couple of months that he is not concerned with the ongoing devastation in Gaza. If, for whatever reason, he sincerely wanted to better the situation in Palestine, he would have started with something far less ambitious.
Thirdly it makes no sense for American state planners to tie their policy towards Iran, which is a very important strategic dilemma, to Israel's treatment the Palestinians, which American state power has no stake in.
What can the motives behind this statement, and others like it be?
I can only see possibilities, one, that they are meant increase Obama's personal political capital on the international and domestic peace-activist scenes, and two, that they are part of a war Obama is waging on inside his own Administration with the the AIPAC crowd. The first public evidence of a struggle
was AIPAC's ousting of NIC chair appointee Chaz Freeman. Obama's new-years message to the Islamic Republic and the quick succession of leaks and developments in the AIPAC spy case also seem to be part of this game.
In any case, i don't think Obama would be trying to make any definitive statements on his Iran policy this close to the upcoming elections. Any statements made about Iran should be analyzed under the US-Israeli rubric, rather than taken as developments in US-Iran relations.
Masoud
Masoud makes some good points, but I think that some US policymakers understand that the situation on the West Bank is alienating them from the Arab middle class. They see Islamic radicals using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to score political points and they want to score some of their own by intervening, at long last, on behalf of the Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteSo my conclusion is generally the same: this statement is entirely about the US/Israeli relationship and has little to do with Iran or its nuclear program. Israel, for its part, is doing much the same thing: they have stated that Iran's nuclear program must be terminated prior to any withdrawal from the West Bank. This, of course, makes even less sense than the US declaration and they seem to have chosen this precondition almost at random, possibly for no other reason that because it is an impossible task. (Like one of Hercules' labors!)
Thus does poor Iran become a helpless talking point in someone else's dispute. This is not a good position to be in since one side or the other will always have an incentive to be dissatisfied with Iran's policies in order to have an argument to support their own position. Breaking out of this dynamic requires that Iran assert itself as an independent actor.
Lending public support for the "Two-State Solution," including the promise of recognition for Israel when the settlements are dismantled and the Occupation ends, would put Tel Aviv on the defensive and help the Americans help the Palestinians. This is a pragmatic approach to the problem and one that the Palestinians themselves now recognize as the most realistic way to alleviate their suffering. That the Americans would be in the awkward position of having Iran on their side (and thus will be forced to tone down their rhetoric) only makes it sweeter.