US Official: "We would like Hezbollah to get a 'black eye'" out of the the whole 'Hariri tribunal' affair ...

MEPGS brief: December 22, 2010

"A clearly chastened Obama  Administration has "gone back to
the drawing boards" for a new approach to peacemaking between
Israelis and Palestinians.  "I would say the President is more
sober minded than before," said one top Administration official.
Despite reports to the contrary, the Administration never wavered
in its commitment to provide a written version of promises,
should the Israeli government accept a 90 day partial settlement
freeze.  Notably, this would have included funding for a squadron
of advanced F-35 fighter jets, over and above those already
promised Israel and funded through annual foreign aid
appropriations.
According to reliable sources, the main stumbling block was
the Israeli government's determination to trumpet the exception
to the settlement freeze, that is, continued building in East
Jerusalem.  "There was no way we could get negotiations going if
the main focus was going to be on Jerusalem," said one well-
placed US official.  Then, there was the problem of what would
have happened at the end of 90 days.  "After getting the
Palestinians to resume talks -- and pay a political price in
doing so -- what were we going to be able to produce on day 91?"
asked this official rhetorically.
 While unwilling to spell out specific US strategy going
forward, senior Administration officials have made it clear that
it cannot look like the US wants a deal more than the parties
themselves.  That is not to say they don't see the urgency for
both sides.  For the Israelis, it is a status quo on the ground
that cannot be maintained let alone improved (as has been done on
the West Bank under Prime Minister Sallam Fayyed).  For the
Palestinians, their latest gambit of rounding up international
recognition for their state is a "dead end" in the view of US
officials, who make it clear that they will block its adoption if
necessary but say it will also set back chances for eventual
progress in peace talks.  One top US officials sums up
Administration thinking this way:  "We need to find a way for the
two sides to negotiate.  We will not do it in the place of them."
Key US officials are a good deal more upbeat about their
diplomatic political successes on the issue of Iran's nuclear
program.  The meeting earlier this month in Geneva, according to
US officials, demonstrated to the Iranians that they could not
divide the six powers who are in talks with them [US, UK, France,
Germany, Russia and China].  While this first meeting was
designed to allow the Iranians to "vent" [in the words of one
European diplomat], the next, in January in Istanbul, will find
the "Six" a lot less accommodating.  Meanwhile, the US is going
forward with additional measures to make it more difficult for
Iran to do business in the international arena.  "We are closing
every loophole we find on individuals and companies large and
small [including the Iranian "trading companies" or "bonyards",
which, according to US officials have increasingly become
vehicles for Revolutionary Guard business dealings]
The Europeans, led by France, are also focusing on
developing a model similar to the US and in some cases going
beyond Administration efforts.  "We want to develop our own
`Stuart Leveys' [the US Treasury department UnderSecretary whose
has been in the forefront of going after companies doing business
illegally with Iran]," is the way one European diplomat put it
recently.  Moreover, the Europeans want to press Iran on human
rights issues, arguing they are better placed to have an effect,
since their criticisms do not come with the burden of "regime
change" as US attacks might well do.
While future talks may well be held in Brazil or even Iran,
say US officials, the US, Britain and France in particular will
offer no rewards for partial gestures from Iran.  "This is not a
`carrot and stick' approach, says one well-placed source.  We are
going ahead with talks for two reasons.  First, if unexpectedly
the Iranians change their minds about `going nuclear', we want to
have a channel open for them to be able to back down somewhat
gracefully."  Second, if they do display some willingness to
negotiate seriously, we want to be prepared to respond quickly."
    At the same time, there is a palpable sense of relief over
what has been called the "ticking clock" of Iranian nuclear
development.  Most recently, the technical setbacks indicate to
most observers that outside forces [most assume the Israelis]
have been able to introduce destructive computer bugs into Iran's
enrichment program.  Another widely mentioned issue is whether
the Iranians are really up to producing a weapon.  More than one
expert questions that after two decades, predictions of Iran
"crossing the threshold" constantly have to be revised to a later
date.  
That being said, it has been more than three years since
Iran achieved the ability to create fissionable material that
eventually, after enrichment, could be used to produce a nuclear
device.  It was also supposed to be a "red line" that many
assumed the Israelis would never let them cross ["It turned out
to be more of a `pink line'", commented one US official].  Still,
top US and European officials remain convinced that there is a
red line for Israel.  It involves a number of factors that, in
combination, would provoke a military attack by Israel on Iran.
And this assumption, as much as any combination of other factors,
energizes efforts to deny Iran the capability to produce a
nuclear device.  However, Israeli officials have made it clear to
their US counterparts that, so far they are impressed (and
surprised) with the success the Administration has had in
ratcheting up pressure on Iran.  In return, US officials
acknowledge that Israel would like nothing better than a peaceful
resolution of the Iranian "nuclear problem."  As one top US
official said recently, "The last thing the Israelis want to do
is go it alone."
The Israelis are also not looking for a reprise of their
inconclusive 2006 fight with Lebanon's Hezbollah militia.  Now
armed with tens of thousands of various sized missiles, a war
with Hezbollah, it is believed, could find Tel Aviv under attack.
Hezbollah, under siege politically from an intentional tribunal
investigating the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hairi, has lashed out at Israel, not to mention the current
Lebanese government led by his son, Saad.  However, the
Administration, backed by France, has pressed Saad to accept
indictments handed down by the Intentional Tribunal investigating
the assassination.  Part of the reason for this pressure on Saad
[who, according to some well-placed sources, would like nothing
better than for the entire issue to go away], is not only to
uphold the concept of these kind of tribunals {Which have
succeeded in trying and convicting war criminals such as Solbodan
Milosevic) but also to help end the era of assassinations in
Lebanon.  Moreover, US officials would like to see Hezbollah get
a "black eye" to cite the words of one Administration official
[However, to help protect Israelis, should Hezbollah turns its
anger on them, Congress and the Administration has accelerated
production of the "Iron Dome" anti-missile defense system,
providing an additional $275 million for it in this years
Appropriations bill].