The Realist Prism: Gaza, NPT Could Run Out Obama’s Mideast Clock

Democrats in Congress have criticized the president’s attempts at a “nuanced” stance. Rep. Gary Ackerman, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, argued against “holding Israel to an unacceptable double standard.” In assessing the recent actions of the administration, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer concluded, “That’s the kind of switch the world notices: An ally gets a push, while an enemy gets a pass.”

The Charleston Post-Courier editorialized that this is the wrong approach to take: “The best way to encourage democratic nations to take a chance on peace is to make their citizens feel secure within their own borders. President Obama’s diplomacy appears to be having the opposite effect.”

But what is seen at home as major, dramatic changes in terms of U.S. solidarity with and support for Israel are viewed overseas as relatively anemic, cosmetic changes. The U.N. Security Council statement that so many in the U.S. have condemned the administration for permitting in the first place was also heavily criticized in other parts of the world because the United States was able to “dilute” its language, focusing on the narrow tragedy of the incident rather than on the larger question of Israel’s enforcement of a blockade against Gaza. Senior U.S. officials, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, have also reiterated U.S. support for Israel’s position.

Meanwhile, the NPT review conference statement does not commit the United States to any course of action. The proposed meeting in 2012 to discuss a nuclear-free Middle East will only take place, National Security Adviser Jim Jones has noted, “by consensus of the regional countries,” and will begin deliberations “if and when all countries feel confident that they can attend.” With these clarifications in place, An-Nahar recently noted, it still appears as if Washington is acting as “Israel’s international godfather.”

So the Obama administration is discovering that in the Middle East, there is no “middle ground” it can comfortably claim, and it is certainly not being rewarded for its efforts to split the difference. Mild criticism of Israel by international standards provokes a domestic political backlash. At the same time, the administration receives no credit for its willingness to put what is, by American standards, considerable pressure on Israel. By contrast, for instance, the Bush administration would have blocked both the NPT review conference final document and the U.N. Security Council statement outright.

So what is the administration’s game plan? An attempt to refurbish America’s bona fides as a mediator in the Middle East peace process? A gambit to shore up support for the next round of sanctions on Iran? Demonstrating to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his coalition partners the extent of their vulnerability if the United States should ease up on its traditional support for Israel? Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times sees a method in the madness: “The cost of rebuffing American demands looks higher, now that it is Israel’s only friend in the world. The Americans hope that [Netanyahu] and at least some of the parties in his coalition will conclude that the status quo can’t be maintained — in Gaza or the West Bank.”

It’s now likely that the administration will engage in a furious effort of shuttle diplomacy over the next few weeks — especially between Turkey, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Saudi Arabia — to try and jury-rig a series of compromises. Expect to see an announcement of a plan to modify the blockade on Gaza, with a vast increase in the number of goods permitted into the territory — including construction and building supplies — as well as the opening of new land supply routes and agreements on facilitating exports from the territory. In return, Israel will maintain its maritime blockade as well as continued rigorous inspections to prevent weapons from flowing to the strip.

Also look for a renewed U.S. commitment to aiding the development of the institutions that would buttress a future Palestinian state, and continued U.S. pressure on Israel to halt settlement activity in Jerusalem, to demonstrate the administration’s desire to keep the peace process alive. We might also see the resignation or retirement of special envoy George Mitchell and the presentation of a new candidate who is “fresh for the job,” in order to signal Obama’s determination to keep his Middle East policies from complete implosion.

(That raises the possibility, admittedly speculative, that Dennis Ross could be tapped as the overall “Middle East czar”, combining both the Israel-Palestine and Iran portfolios and using his current position within the National Security Council to emerge as the grand strategist for the administration’s regional policies.)

It will take all the administration’s diplomatic capabilities, as well as the expenditure of a good deal of what’s left of Obama’s political capital on Capitol Hill , to prevent Congress from undermining his efforts by passing strongly pro-Israel legislation that constrains his freedom of diplomatic maneuver. This is the moment that the president has always dreaded: a deadlock in the Middle East that threatens to undo all that he has attempted to accomplish in the past year — including a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear crisis. Throughout that period, he has attempted to buy more time for maneuver. But now, he may not be able to avoid watching the clock run out.