US Official: "Saad [Hariri] frittered away his victory & now is presiding over a government that lurches from Syria to Saudi Arabia to the US..."

MEPGS: Excerpts:
Continuing tensions between the United States and Israel were on display this week, first as Prime Minister Netanyahu skipped the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington and then in some comments by President Obama in a press conference at the end of the Washington meetings.  Ostensibly, the Israeli Prime Minister's "no-show" was attributed to a reluctance to Israel being singled out for its undeclared nuclear arsenal.  However, a number of well-informed observers argue that still unresolved issues left over from his less than successful visit here just three weeks ago led him to conclude it was not an auspicious time to be in town.  As one US official put it, "The last thing `Bibi' needed was another lecture from the Administration."      Adding to tensions between the two erstwhile allies have been the repeated hints from unnamed "senior Administration officials" that the President is considering abandonment of his "incremental" approach to Arab-Israeli peace making in favor of tabling an American plan.  Reports of this new thinking first surfaced in the New York Times and the Washington Post.  Recent comments by CENTCOM commander, General David Petreus
 to the effect that the long standing Arab-Israeli imbroglio exacerbated problems for the US military in the region were echoed by President Obama in this week's press conference when he called it "a vital national security interest of the United States," not just the parties themselves to resolve the conflict.      However, for the time being, according to a number of reliable sources, there has been no decision to change the current "step-by-step" approach being pursued by Special Envoy George Mitchell.  Moreover, key State Department officials sourly note that in his remarks at this week's press conference, the President invoked the words of former Secretary of State James Baker, "...the United States can't impose solutions unless the participants...are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism.  "We can't want it more than they do."      So, veteran US officials and well-placed diplomats say it still may be some time before the President puts his own plan on the table.  At the National Security Council, senior advisor Dennis Ross, a long time advocate of an incremental approach, has become active as a back channel to the Israelis [much to the chagrin of State Department officials and Mitchell's staff].  US officials also note that the responses demanded to the questions put to Netanyahu go unanswered.  "We have told him [Netanyahu] that we need to know your strategic vision and how to get there," says one well-placed US official.  "We have also said we want a clear understanding of what your plans are.  And we say we are expecting an answer by `such and such' date.  But the date keeps changing."      US analysts say Netanyahu, in the words of one State Department official "...is paying the price of his coalition."  The current Israeli government is almost exclusively hard line.  And it will certainly fall, should Netanyahu, for example, agree to a settlement freeze that includes Jerusalem.  Some in the Administration also argue that pushing Netanyahu to make concessions will only cause the Arab side to make more demands.  However, if, as many expect, the current track leads nowhere, there is expected to be increasing pressure, according to State Department officials, not only from President Obama but also secretary of State Clinton, to put a US plan on the table.  As one State Department insider says, recalling the health care reform debate, "Incrementalism is not a game the President likes to play."  Recalls another senior Clinton aide, "Remember it was Bill Clinton, at Camp David, who put forth his own plan.      Meanwhile, US, Israeli and allied officials are furiously comparing notes and sharing intelligence of a burgeoning problem of Syrian supplied weapons to Hezbollah.  Last month tensions reached a peak when Israel asserted that Syria was on the verge of "crossing a red line" with the supply of advanced ground-to- ground and possibly ground-to-air missiles to its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon.  Representations were made to Syria, indirectly by Israel and directly by the US and several European governments.  At the same time, Senate Foreign Committee Chairman, John Kerry, delivered what one US official called a "consistent message" during a visit to Damascus.  The upshot apparently is that tensions have abated somewhat but one well- placed source, using a classic diplomatic turn of phrase, described the current situation as having a "residual elevated level of concern."      State Department officials would very much like to have the new US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, in place, as soon as possible.  He sailed through his confirmation hearings but State Department officials fear his confirmation will be put on hold as a result of Syria's new shipment of arms to Hezbollah.  "This is exactly the time we need an ambassador in Damascus," said one frustrated State Department official this week.  What makes his presence there all the more necessary is the obvious distaste with which State Department officials feel when dealing with his Syrian counterpart in Washington, Imad Moustapha.      If further arming of Hezbollah leads to hostilities, it will surely center partly, if not exclusively on Lebanon.  And the Lebanese these days have troubles of their own, as the government of Saad Hariri, in the view of US officials, continues to underperform.  "Saad frittered away his victory and now is presiding over a government that lurches from Syria to Saudi Arabia to the US [where a visit to Washington is expected late next month]," said one veteran State Department official.  Further complicating matters for the young Prime Minister is the work of the International Tribunal looking into the 2005 assassination of his father, Rafik.  While prosecutors are not officially informing US officials of the status of their investigation, it is widely believed that they will, by year's end, issue indictments of several members of Hezbollah for complicity in the killing.      Yet another issue confronting Lebanon is its position on the proposed resolution for further sanctions against Iran.  With China now fully engaged in negotiations, a resolution could well be brought before the United Nations Security Council next month, when Lebanon, a rotating member, will assume the Presidency.  The Hariri government is already under pressure to resist this resolution by Hezbollah (Iran's protege).  US officials, are, however unsympathetic.  "We warned them to be careful about what they wished for," says one State Department official.  This official asserted that he preferred Lebanon to be "on the hot seat", since it could give the government a better excuse for going along with a resolution certain to gain overwhelming Council support.       While the US leads the charge on Iranian sanctions, it has seemingly left the political field in Iraq.  Perhaps that is because, as one State Department official says, We are only at the beginning of the game."  Still, that has not stopped some veteran US analysts from handicapping the outcome, which may be as far away as Ramadan in August.  The betting among these officials is that there will be a governing party that includes significant Sunni participation and excludes the radical cleric Muqtada-al-Sadr, but is, of course, led by the shia majority.  "They may all be trooping off to Iran, but at the end of the day they know they have no choice but to be in this together as Iraqis," says one veteran US official.