MEPGS: An Israeli attack would be designed "to force an international crisis" ...

 [MEPGS: Excerpts]  
".... US officials who have a history of dealing with Abbas are not surprised at his latest pronouncements.  "He has always run away from things," says one veteran US official.  "But" adds this official more sympathetically, "He is genuinely fed up.  And he has been stung by his friends, like Egypt and Jordan, not standing up for him."      Abbas is not alone in his disappointment in the performance of moderate Arab states.  Veteran analysts say one of the mistakes the Obama Administration made was to overestimate the willingness of Arab moderates to cooperate with US plans under a new more sympathetic President.  To counter this, the Administration has leaned on Israel to adopt a settlement freeze.  And in talks last week with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President elicited a pledge of a freeze on new West Bank settlement construction for 10 months [According to informed sources, the President demanded a "double digit" number and the Prime Minister agreed to the lowest double digit.  This is a pattern, say former US officials, that goes back to Netanyahu's previous tenure in office when at one point President Clinton asked for a cutback "in the teens" and got 13%]       Despite the difficulty dealing with Netanyahu, some US officials admit privately that President Obama has underestimated the need to reassure the average Israeli.  As one key US official put it last week after the Israeli and US leaders met at the White House, "We need to do better in showing the Israelis that our deep, fundamental bi-lateral relationship has not and will not change."      However, some analysts say the President's highly analytical approach has impeded the implementation of policies he believes are in both US and Israeli interest.  Moreover, it has helped to accelerate the Israeli public shift to the right.  "By including Jerusalem in the debate over settlements," says one analyst, "The Administration is making the average Israeli less likely to be accommodating."  Unlike in the past, when Israeli leaders tangled with their foremost ally, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not appear to be weakened.  Instead it is the left in Israeli, note a number of analysts, that is being marginalized.  As one Israeli put it recently "They [the Administration] won't get [Opposition leader] Tzipi Livni by taking a hard line on Jerusalem.  It is more likely they will find her in a Netanyahu-led government."      Jerusalem is also critical of the Administration's outreach to the new liberal Jewish lobby known as "J Street"  National Security Advisor Jones addressed the group on October 31.  Some in the Israeli government are known to believe that his address was an attempt at pressure.  And his promise to return to speak to the group "year after year" has elicited the response that J Street likely will not be around for long.  But even veteran US officials took umbrage at some of Jones' remarks to the group.  One State Department official singled out his reference to the Israeli-Palestinian problem as the "epicenter" of troubles in the Middle East. Deriding this concept, this official asked rhetorically, "Would solving the Palestinian problem help in North Africa, bring good government to Egypt and so on?"        For some veteran US analysts, Jones' foray in domestic American Jewish politics is another example of him being a bad fit for the job.  "He is a week reed," says one official who has worked closely from time-to-time with Jones.  This official also bemoans the lack of executive experience among the Administration's top foreign policy makers.  With the President, Vice President and Secretary of State all coming from the Senate, only Defense Secretary Gates, notes this official, has the requisite Executive experience.  As a result, this analyst concludes, "The foreign policy team has wasted its political capital."      One area where the foreign policy team appears united, if not any more effective, is on the question of dealing with Iran.  With the leading powers scheduled to meet in Brussels, the question now being raised within the Administration is how to handle what is being called the "pressure track" on Iran.  With few illusions about China and Russia going along with a strong UN Security Council resolution, officials are debating the wisdom of securing a weak one that would serve, in one observer's words as a "coat hanger" for tougher measures by the US and like minded states.  The French and British are actually ahead of the US in planning for tough economic sanctions.  Japan, despite its new government, has not given any indication that it will deviate from supporting a tough sanctions regime.  Ideas being bruited about include a total arms embargo and both an end to new investments in Iran's gas and oil sector as well as a divestment of existing assets.      What the Administration does not want is interference from the Congress.  Yet, Capitol Hill insiders say that the House is likely to pass a sanctions bill by the end of the year, with the Senate following early in 2010.  However, with both Houses controlled by Democrats, there is no desire to embarrass the President.  So, a conference that would need to be convened to sort out the differences between the two bills lies well into the future.  More likely to come sooner are signs from Israel about how long it is willing to wait for the international community to bring a halt to Iran's unfettered nuclear development program.       There are many views about Israeli action, should sanctions prove ineffective.  Some veteran observers of Prime Minister Netanyahu are convinced that he will act militarily, if other options fail.  As one former US official puts it, "The Israelis know that single-handedly they cannot do more than temporarily delay Iran's nuclear program."  So, in his view, an Israeli attack would be designed "to force an international crisis" that could lead to effective international pressure against Iran.  US officials do not discount this scenario.  As one put it recently, "There is no way Bibi [Netanyahu] won't do something."  And most analysts agree that unilateral Israeli military action against Iran would have consequences both within the region and in the international community.  One certain action, says a well- informed source, would be the resignation of Defense Secretary Gates, who, according to this source, has made it clear that he would publicly resign should the US give a green light to an Israeli attack."