Posts Tagged ‘ehud barak’
Peace…now?
We’re not sure what to make of this Jerusalem Post report that Ehud Barak is contemplating new peace discussions based on the Arab League’s Saudi initiative, since, he says, “We have interests in common with moderate Arab elements on Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas.”
Barak even said President Shimon Peres agrees, and that he mentioned the idea to the likely next PM Tzipi Livni.
The Saudi initiative, in its day, came as a way to take the initiative away from Ariel Sharon after the Israeli PM had begun to forcibly dismantle the Palestinian terror infrastructures and sideline Yasser Arafat’s regime. Israelis didn’t take it seriously then – why would Arab states step forward for peace when the terror has been defeated, but remain silent while it raged?
What’s Barak’s game? Is it for domestic consumption? He’s got a bit more than a year to elections, and he heads the main left-wing party.
Could he be serious? Could he be calculating that the Saudis, Egyptians, perhaps even Syrians are so scared of Iran they’ll make a genuine peace with the Jewish state?
Barack and Barak on Iran
Barack Obama (Source: CNN)
Barack at an event in Iowa yesterday:
“My job as president would be to try to make sure that we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we’ve mobilized the world community to go after Iran’s program in a serious way and to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a difficult calculation. We’ve got to do that before Israel feels like its back is to the wall.”
Is he getting it? Possibly:
Obama said in Iowa that after visiting Israel last month, he believed Israel’s “general attitude is we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. They recognize there are no good military options but they also recognize that from their perspective it is unacceptable to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he added.
Ehud Barak
Contrast this to the equally important statement Ehud Barak (ours, that is) delivered last week after a meeting with Condoleezza Rice. The content of the meeting is not public, but Barak’s people told reporters afterwards that the Bush administration was opposed to a military strike. While the defense minister took pains to note that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, he also expressly acquiesced to American diplomacy in the near term:
“Our position is that no option is to be taken off the table, but in the meantime we have to make diplomatic progress.”
This isn’t too strange. The liberal Obama must demonstrate he understands the danger, while the hawkish Bush administration must demonstrate they are pursuing peace. It tells us little about the actual thinking on Iran of either Obama or Bush, and therefore little about any imminent Israeli or American plans vis-a-vis Iran, but it does at least demonstrate that everyone is speaking a common language.
We’re going to speculate here that Obama’s comments were meant to indicate that on Iran, at least, he is thinking strategically rather than ideologically, distancing himself from running mate Joe Biden, at least on this issue. This is a good thing.
