Despite their mutual enthusiasm for ousting Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein, Israel and the United States appear increasingly at
odds over what to do about the larger Middle East region.
While the administration of President George W. Bush favors, or is at least
indifferent to, the collapse of the Ba'athist regime of Syrian President Bashar
Assad, the Israelis reportedly made it very clear in high-level talks in Washington
late last month that they do not see the alternatives to the young leader as
At the same time, while Washington appears relatively content with Europe and
Russia taking the lead in diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear
program well short of any weapons capacity, Israel is growing concerned that
Washington's threats to push for international sanctions or even attack suspected
nuclear targets in Iran are becoming less and less credible.
The government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose new party is expected
to emerge as the strongest in elections next year, is also increasingly worried
about Washington's pro-democracy drive for the region. In its view, the U.S.
campaign risks empowering Islamist groups that are ideologically even more hostile
to Israel than the authoritarian regimes they are challenging.
In that respect, the strong showing by the candidates affiliated with the Muslim
Brotherhood in recent parliamentary elections in Egypt, the Arab state with
which Israel first established peace, is considered particularly ominous.
The notion that Sharon is unhappy with the direction of U.S. policy in the
region naturally challenges the view that Israel exercises a dominant
if not decisive influence over Washington's Middle East policy, particularly
since the rise within the Bush administration after the September 2001 attacks
of neoconservatives for whom Israel's security is considered a core principle.
But neoconservatives have generally held their own views about how that security
can be best ensured usually in ways that are much closer to the right-wing
Likud Party, whose ranks Sharon has just deserted, than to an Israeli government
whose policies they consider too dovish. Thus, while they cheered Sharon for
his harsh crackdown against the second Palestinian Intifada, many neoconservatives
broke with him over his disengagement from Gaza.
In spite of their gradual decline in influence in the Bush administration since
the Iraq invasion, neoconservatives have been lobbying hard for the past two
years for a policy of "regime change" in Syria. If necessary, this
would include limited military strikes designed to humiliate Assad and punish
him for his alleged failure to dismantle operations by the Iraqi insurgency
and "foreign fighters" in Syria. They have been backed by the same
hardliners who championed the Iraq invasion, notably Vice President Dick Cheney
and some senior Pentagon officials.
In the past year, neoconservatives have also argued that overthrowing the Ba'athist
regime in Syria would add momentum to U.S. efforts to spread democracy in the
region, particularly in the wake of Damascus' withdrawal of its military and
intelligence forces from Lebanon after the assassination of former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February.
The withdrawal, as well as the subsequent UN investigation that has pointed
the finger at Damascus, has strengthened those in the administration who favor
But Israel, whose own analysis of the situation in Syria echoes that of regional
experts in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department, has
voiced strong reservations, most recently at last month's strategic dialogue.
According to an account of Israel's presentation by the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency (JTA), the Israeli representatives cited three possible post-Assad scenarios,
"none of them good."
They included chaos that could actually see the spread of Iraq's burgeoning
sectarian conflict engulfing Syria and even Lebanon; the seizure of power by
the Muslim Brotherhood; or the emergence of another leader from Assad's minority
Alawite sect who would be far more authoritarian.
In their view, both Assad's secular domestic opposition and his exiled foes,
notably neoconservative favorite Farid Ghadry, are far too weak and disorganized
to rally a mass following or seriously contest power. To the Israelis, according
to an account in The Forward, the main U.S. Jewish newspaper, Assad
"is more than 'the devil you know,' he is the only Syrian that can maintain
"The status quo in Syria seems to Israel to be the least bad scenario;
a weak, impotent leader without any cards to play," said Leon
Hadar, an Israeli-born expert whose recent book, Sandstorm,
argues for a much-reduced U.S. role and presence in the region.
"The short- and medium-term Israeli interest is clearly not to see anarchy
or chaos in either Lebanon or Syria with all the mess they have to deal with
in the West Bank and Gaza," he said.
If the Israeli government fears the administration's activism when it comes
to Syria, it is far more concerned about U.S. passivity over Iran's alleged
nuclear weapons program. This is particularly so in light of recent threats
against the Jewish state by Tehran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and
an Israeli military intelligence assessment that such a program could become
irreversible as early as next March.
At last month's talks, Israeli officials reportedly reproached their U.S. interlocutors
for agreeing to delay an effort to press the board of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions
in light of a previous IAEA finding that Tehran had withheld information about
its nuclear program
Washington instead agreed to delay a campaign to bring the issue to the Security
Council in order to permit the so-called EU-3 (France, Germany, and Britain)
to present a Russian proposal to resolve the current standoff over Iran's uranium
Israel's complaints coincided with an extremely rare public criticism of the
administration by the chief Zionist lobby in Washington, the American Israeli
Public Affairs Committee. The group, which is particularly powerful in Congress,
warned that further delay "poses a severe danger to the United States and
our allies, and puts America and our interests at risk."
The Israelis were particularly taken aback, according to The Forward,
by the administration's failure to vigorously object to a recent Russian deal
to sell Tehran more than one billion dollars worth of anti-aircraft missiles,
"which could be used to help Iran protect its nuclear facilities against
a possible air strike."
They were also displeased by the announcement that the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad,
Zalmay Khalilzad, has received presidential authority to resume direct talks
with Iran about its interests and activities in Iraq that were cut off by administration
hardliners two and a half years ago.
The Israelis and their supporters in the U.S. fear that Washington's need for
Tehran's cooperation in stabilizing Iraq and thus permitting most U.S. forces
there to withdraw over the next year has weakened the administration's leverage
to push for stronger action against Iran on the nuclear issue, even as it continues
to insist that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability is "unacceptable."
(Inter Press Service)