During his presidency to date, Obama has visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the Middle East. He made sure that his “keynote address” on Middle East policy was delivered in Cairo. Despite the fact that Israel remains the USA’s most important ally in the Middle East, and the only democracy in the region, Obama has made an obvious point of not visiting Israel. What can be deduced from this behaviour? Even though he has spent some considerable time in dealing with Middle East issues, and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in particular, it sends a clear message to Israel when the US president does not find the time to pay Israel a personal visit. His predecessors made it their business to publicly be seen visiting Israel, so why is Obama so eager to avoid such a public display?

The truth is that the necessity to revisit his relationship with Netanyahu is only one example of Obama having to admit having done the wrong thing in relation to Israel at the first attempt. It was only a few months ago that Obama was forced to admit that his approach in dealing with the Middle East was mistaken, and that his administration was forced to change the way in which this was being handled. He admitted that he could not impose a settlement on Israel, that Israel is a sovereign nation and the notion that he could impose a settlement was simply wrong. What was he thinking when he considered the possibility of imposing a settlement on Israel? And why did he think that admitting such a ridiculous thought would be ok? The insult that he dished out to Israel in the process was only slighlty less than the damage done to his own standing by admitting that he had held this view. We have only seen the tip of the damage done, both to his Middle East policy and to his personal standing.

I cannot help but feel that this is not a series of innocent mistakes. It seems more like a natural instinct that he is finding hard to suppress when dealing with Israel. Having allowed his first reaction to come to the fore, he is forced to eat humble pie by admitting to his mistake, and trying to make good the damage caused. Unfortunately, his mistakes are too frequent and too consistent. When he should be affording Israel some respect, he is found to be critical and derogatory towards her. When he should be holding the feet of Israel’s Arab enemies to the fire, he is found to be too cosy with them, and too accommodating of their behaviour.

The Israeli public seems to have been quick to pick up on this fact. In a poll published in the “Jerusalem Post” on Friday, it became all too apparent how optimistic Israelis were when he was first elected, and how this optimism has completed disappeared. At first, Israelis were caught up with the positive euphoria that swept the USA after the election of the first African American president. In a poll in May 2009, no fewer than 31% of Israelis felt that Obama was pro-Israel while 14% felt he was pro-Palestinian. By June 2009, the views of Israelis had changed dramatically to reflect only 6% believing that he was pro-Israel and 50% viewing him as pro-Palestinian. Now, after his charm offensive with Netanyahu and his first interview with an Israeli TV station since his arrival at the White House, the same poll shows 10% of Israelis seeing him as pr0-Israel and 46% as pro-Palestinian. This may “only” be a public opinion poll with no real effect on the political landscape, but these are the same people who will be voting in the next Israeli general election. A candidate who is seen to be too close with a US president viewed as anti-Israel is likely to suffer at the polls.

At best, Obama’s mixed messages and amateurish behaviour with respect to the Middle East can be viewed as naive and poorly considered. For somebody, however, who is such an expert at ensuring that his messages have the correct spin for public consumption, his actions seem to be more than unintentional errors. While I have no evidence to support some of the conspiracy theories that circulate about Obama’s Muslim ancestry and a hidden agenda on the part of the US president to promote Muslim interests in the Middle East (at the expense of the Jews), it is difficult to understand what Obama is trying to achieve in the region. I was recently reminded that Islam is handed down through the paternal line, and that Obama’s father was a Muslim. Obama has, of course, made a point of reinforcing his Christian faith at every possible photo opportunity. From a Muslim perspective, however, this does not deny that he is a Muslim – it simply makes him a bad Muslim.

It is clear that Obama had a huge job on his hands to convert the euphoria and enormous hope that rested on his shoulders at the time of his election into actions that would satisfy his electorate and the world at large. It could be argued that the expectations were so high, that he had no chance of fulfilling them. When it comes to his Middle East policy, however, his efforts have been abysmal. The work done so far, and the damage with it, seems to be too large to overcome. It is my view that, irrespective of what he may achieve in the Middle East during the remainder of his time in the White House, nothing will be enough to recover from his poor start. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

Obama’s Take Two – Again is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Obama Tells Muslims to Stop Blaming Israel
2. Obama Trip to Israel Recap
3. Arab States Tell Obama No

Reza Khalili was recruited to join the Revolutionary Guard in 1979.  What he experienced sickened him, and he reached out to the American Central Intelligence Agency and offered to help them prevent needless death and bloodshed at the hands of Iran’s new terrorist army.

Khalili is a pseudonym, but the stories are real.  I look forward to reading Khalili’s new book, “A Time to Betray: The Astonishing Double Life of a CIA Agent Inside the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.”  CNN reports:

In one of his first public appearances, Kahlili addressed a packed hall Friday at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Flanked by a bodyguard and disguised in a hat, mask and glasses, he spoke through a modulator that led Washington Post columnist David Ignatius to liken his voice to Darth Vader’s. Even his name is a pseudonym, all in an effort to protect his family, friends and contacts, he said.

The author said that, after a peaceful childhood in Iran, he came to the United States in the 1970s for college, studying computer science at the University of Southern California, where he enjoyed a carefree life of parties, watching football and listening to Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull.

He returned home after the sudden death of his father to find a country embroiled in change.

Kahlili describes the immediate aftermath of the 1979 revolution against Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as a special time in Iran. Iranians had been led to believe democracy was theirs, the clergy wouldn’t interfere in their lives and the people would have freedom of speech, assembly and political affiliation, he said. Everyone was excited about the direction of the country, he said.

It was then that Khalili’s friend told him about an opportunity with the newly formed, elite Revolutionary Guard, which hired him immediately.

Reza said he quickly became disillusioned when he saw people being tortured and murdered and women raped in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison. Repressing his countrymen, he said, was not what he had signed up for.

But rather than quit the Guard and endanger his family, he contacted the CIA and began work as an American agent under the code name “Wally,” he said.

In his story, he relates many terrifying truths, such as Iran’s inevitable attack on Israel and the naivety of  US administrations that do not take the Iranian threat seriously.  “Stop dreaming, please,” he said Friday. “You are not dealing with rational people. Every time you extend a hand, it is not seen as sincerity, but stupidity.”

Life Inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Iran Sends Weapons to Syria Via Venezuela
2. If I Ever Go To Iran, I Will Probably Be Executed
3. Iranian Flotilla to Gaza

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington today to chat with President Barack Obama.  Before going into the meeting, Netanyahu made a big gesture by offering to meet with PA President Mahmoud “Abu Mazen” Abbas in direct peace talks.

Of course, Abbas gave the same answer he has given since Netanyahu became Prime Minister about a year ago: no.  Abbas is smart.  While I hate everything he stands for, he is not a dumb guy or he wouldn’t have become President of a national movement.  (Although George W. Bush was a national leader…)  Abbas realizes that, at the current status quo, the United States will keep chipping away at Israel until the Israelis have given the Palestinians everything they want anyway.

Israel is in a very difficult position today, and holding a true status quo situation is in the best interest of the Israeli people, outside of the far south and the Shalit family.  As long as Israel’s borders are secure and we are not giving away anything, Israel is not losing anything or making any permanent mistakes.  The Gaza withdrawal was evidence of the massive problems that are caused by making any unilateral move to help the Palestinians.  It ended up worse for us and worse for them.

Unlike the corrupt Ehud Olmert, I trust the Benjamin Netanyahu is really doing what he believes is best for the Israeli people and the Jewish people in the long run.  And, also unlike Olmert, what Bibi has in mind is a lot closer to what I think is best for Israel and the Jewish people in the long run.

Do you think Bibi is on the right track?  Should we hold the status quo or give something away?  Please give your thoughts in the comments.

Israel Offers Peace Talks, PA Says No is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Olmert Offers a Peace Deal
2. Peace Talks With Whom?
3. Abbas Rejects Israel Peace Offer

One plan is for an all out war with Iran to end the program.  That is far from Plan A, but the United States has been planning for such an altercation.  If I know about it, Iran surely knows about it.  Maybe that will come into play for some level of deterrence.

Another plan is for a covert intelligence operation, known as the Brain Drain, which would help take Iranian nuclear scientists out of the country.  The United States has also relied on the threat the Israel may intervene:

By all accounts, Mr. Obama has ramped up a Bush-era covert program to undermine Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, and he has made quiet diplomatic use of Israel’s lurking threat to take military action if diplomacy and pressure fail.

Read more about the options the United States is considering at the New York Times.

Nuclear Iran – Plan B, C, and D is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. US to Iran: You Have Two Weeks
2. "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
3. Iran Has Enough Uranium for a Nuclear Bomb

United States Vice President Joe Biden broke his silence about the incident.  He was very supportive of Israeli actions.

If you want to stay on top of the flotilla issues as they unfold, Dan Illouz is keeping the Foltilla Facebook group up to date on current events.  Please join 50,000 others and become a fan if you support Israel’s actions.

Politicians Get Involved in the Flotilla Debate is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. More Flotilla Fallout – Global Updates
2. Iranian Flotilla to Gaza
3. The Flotilla Fiasco

Despite the recent political rift that has formed between Israel and the United States, the military relationship is as strong as ever.  In a recent meeting between US President Barack Obama and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the two were able to see past tensions and build toward continued military relationships between the two countries.

Defense News reports that the United States has made good on a delivery of 1,000 GBU-39 bombs, which will be attached to a fleet of Israeli F-15I aircraft.  The GBU-39 is a 250 pound guided bomb.  It is commonly known as the small diameter bomb.  It is a variant of the “bunker buster” family of bombs.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear that “[their] defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations.”  He supports maintaining a strong relationship with Israel and keeping the IDF equipped with the best military technology in the world as a deterrent to enemy attacks.

The bunker buster bombs are precise, tactical weapons that can take out targets deep underground without the use of a surface nuclear explosion.  Retired Israeli Brigadier General Assaf Agmon hit the nail on the head:

“We see it in North Korea, Iran and other places, and the most effective way to address the threat is through precision, deep penetration airstrikes,” he said. “I think both governments – despite their differences from time to time – realize that a strong, technologically advanced front-line Israeli force promotes mutual strategic interests in this region.”

United States Delivers Bunker Busters to Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. US to Sell Israel 1000 Bunker Bombs
2. Israel Asks US For Weapons, Denied
3. United States Welcomes New President

For decades, the United States has made it a rule to veto any anti-Israel condemnations from the United Nations Security Council.  The United States cited that the UN was systematically biased against Israel and that it is inappropriate to perpetuate that situation.

In a rare anti-Obama moment, I have to condemn the United States for even hinting that this may be over.  According to a report by Ben Smith at the Politico blog, the United States will abstain, rather than veto, in a vote to condemn Israeli construction in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem.

If this is part of Obama’s plan to start peace talks, he might be careful about how he picks his friends.  While Israel has been open to negotiation all along, the Arabs said no until recent US pressure for indirect talks to begin.  The Palestinian Authority has made it clear that they do not really care about peace with Israel, they want it to be gone.

Israel Losing a Friend at the United Nations? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. The United Nations: Let Us In!
2. Iran’s VP: "Iran is Friend of the United States and Even Israel"
3. Iran’s President Still Hates Jews, Tells United Nations

If I sum up everything I have ever read about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, if the United States would agree to join in, Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear sites without any hesitation.  However, the situation is not nearly that simple, and the complexities of attacking Iran have Israel thinking twice about an attack.

While Israel is waiting patiently, the date when an attack might be necessary is quickly approaching.  Iran has four planned nuclear sites, and enrichment is taking place today.  While they claim it is peaceful, Iran’s leaders have publicly called for a genocide against the Jewish people in Israel.

Charles Levinson at The Wall Street Journal did a great analysis of Israel’s reasons for attacking and reasons for waiting.  Of course, the great reason to attack is to protect Israelis (and other Western countries, whether they believe it or not) from the threats of a radical, Islamic, nuclear armed, terrorist supporting country.  The list of reasons not to attack is much longer.

First off, the physical difficulty of the attack makes the chances of success far less than 100%.  Iran has anti-aircraft weapons, heavily secured nuclear sites deep underground, and has neighbors far from friendly to Israel separating it from harm.  In the event Israel were to attack, it would have to route planes over Turkey and Iraq or Saudi Arabia.  Both are Muslim countries friendly to the United States, and breaking their trust would not be an easy thing for Israel or the US to overcome.

Second, Israel has a great, through seemingly deteriorating, relationship with the United States.  The US has been a great supporter over the years, and $3 billion in IDF funds, along with most of its equipment, is nothing to scoff at.  The United States also has a 200 person radar unit in Southern Israel that is very valuable in detecting rocket attacks from other countries around the Middle East.

If Israel were to just go and blow up Iran’s nuclear sites, the United States may be drawn into a war when its resources are already spread thin between Iraq and Afghanistan, both neighbors to Iran.  Without formally declaring war, Iran could arm, equip, and promote attacks against US forces around the region and disrupt fuel supplies to the rest of the world.  As Levinson points out, with gas at $10 per gallon, US citizens may force Israel friendly policies out the door.

The third major reason to hold back is security.  If Israel attacks, it should expect a quick response.  Iran has proxy armies in Gaza and Southern Lebanon that have shown that they do not mind a war with Israel.  Iran also has long range missiles that can easily reach Israel, though the targeting systems are not sophisticated enough to guarantee a hit on civilian populated areas.

Israel has a strong missile defense system, and is rolling out a three layered defense system that would be able to target short range, medium range, and long range attacks.  The bulk of missiles from Iran would likely be intercepted, but civilian loss of life would be likely, and military loss of life would be inevitable.  Unlike Hamas and Hezbollah, Israelis care if its people are killed.

It seems that waiting is okay for now, due to the reasons above.  It is important to note, though, that when an existential threat materializes, it is no doubt better to prevent an attack than wait to be wiped out.  Every day, Iran is closer to having a nuclear bomb in its possession.  That could end up in Hezbollah’s hands, Hamas’ hands, or on the top of a long range missile aimed at Tel Aviv.  Any of those situations is completely unacceptable to Israel and should be to the United States as well.

The balance of power in the Middle East is at risk, and it is vital that Israel not wait until it is too late to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons.  The United States is fully able to prevent this path, but it seems unwilling to make any solid steps today.  We are waiting for sanctions to pass through the United Nations like a dog with its tail between its legs, and it is time to wake up to the realities of the world we live in today.

Could Israel Attack Iran Alone? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Former UN Diplomat: Israel Will Attack Iran
2. Israel May Use Ballistic Missiles Against Iran
3. Guardian: Israel Asked US for Green Light in Iran

Despite your best efforts, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been frozen for over a year. Indeed, in a reversal of 16 years of policy, Palestinian leaders are refusing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. Instead, they have put forward a growing list of unprecedented preconditions. By contrast, Israel’s prime minister stated categorically that he is eager to begin unconditional peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Direct negotiations are in the interest of all parties involved – including the United States.

These are friendly but strong words.  While they are addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they are prominently pointed as President Obama as well.  333 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives signed a similar letter.  Nearly all Republicans and many Democrats signed the letters.  (This is a rare instance that I have really nice things to say about the Republican party, so take note.)

If you want to see anti-Semites at work, take thirty seconds or so to read through some of the comments after the post.

76 US Senators Sign on to Support Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. 71 Senators Ask Obama To Push Arab States
2. Israel Support from Both Sides of the Isle
3. Election Liveblogging

It took him a little time to realize it, but President Barack Obama said that even with all of the pressure he can put on both sides, peace is impossible if they will not meet in person.  Obama has been pressing for peace for over a year, and the Palestinians refuse to cooperate with Israel.  About a month after the Biden incident, it seems that the United States may be backing down a little, for now.

Obama Admits Imposed Peace Will Fail is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Obama Chooses Vice President
2. Obama To Mediate Netanyahu-Abbas Negotiations
3. Obama Does Not Make Ludicrous Demands of Israel