Elliot Abrams: "...A diminished Abbas coming to Washington..."

A convict's take on Obama (of course), Mitchell, Abbas & the Arabs ... in the WeeklyStandard/ here

"... putting the Arab League in charge magnifies the influence of bad actors. To get negotiations going, the Obama administration now has to convince not only Abbas, but Bashar al Assad. Perhaps this helps explain why George Mitchell has visited Damascus and why the administration persists in “outreach” to Syria despite its continuing evil conduct (most recently, reports of the shipment of Scud missiles to Hezbollah). Having committed itself to the “peace process,” the administration simply cannot afford to treat Syria as it deserves; Syria has too much clout now.

The Arab League Monitoring or "follow-up committee" includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Oman, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, and Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa. This means that the influence of Egypt and Jordan, which have peace treaties with Israel, is undermined by that of Syria, Qatar, and Moussa--all likely to take positions adverse to U.S. and Palestinian interests. Abbas’s refusal to provide firm leadership (also evident in the amount of time he spends circling the globe or living in his home in Amman,Jordan) may prove costly to both the United States and his own people.

Abbas is now scheduled to visit Washington, presumably in May--after the Arab League meeting. If the foreign ministers back his entry into proximity talks, he will no doubt tell President Obama that he’s willing to move forward. Talks might have actually begun before he arrives. If the Arab states say no, his visit will be a disaster--and indeed could even be postponed. But in either event, it is a diminished Abbas who will visit here. Once again the Arab states intrude deeply into the “peace process,” and as always they will have their own national interests at heart--not the fate of the Palestinians.(I actually was about to cry. The Zionist Convict actually cares!)

Abbas certainly bears great responsibility for this development, but one can’t hold George Mitchell and Obama policy harmless. Fifteen months of Obama diplomacy have not only badly damaged U.S.-Israel relations and produced no peace talks, they have also undermined Palestinian autonomy. It is a keen measure of the fall of American influence in the region when a Palestinian leader responds to intense American pressure to go to the negotiating table by waiting to see if Arab League foreign ministers will let him take that step."

"Scud to Hezbollah" ... avoided

Nukes & Spooks/ here

So has Syria transferred medium-range Scud ballistic missiles to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant Shiite Muslim militia movement that holds posts in Lebanon's coalition government?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Ehud Barak, were asked that question... The pair accused Syria and Iran of supplying Hezbollah with massive quantities of rockets and missiles. But both avoided using the word "Scud."

"Syria and Iran are providing Hezbollah with rockets and missiles of ever-increasing capability, ... We are at a point now where Hezbollah has far more rockets and missiles than most governments in the world and this is obviously destabilizing for the whole region and we are watching it very closely."....

Do Gates and Barak really not know if Hezbollah has Scuds? Or were they trying to tamp down regional tensions just as it appeared that the Obama administration had succeeded in persuading the Israelis and Palestinians to start indirect peace negotiations next week?

"We do not intend to provoke any kind of major collision in Lebanon or vis a vis Syria," said Barak.

Ahmadinejad coming to NYC?

"...Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has requested a visa to attend a high-level conference next week at U.N. headquarters to review progress on the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to senior U.N. officials and diplomats. [...]

U.N. diplomats said that Ahmadinejad wants to address the nuclear gathering on Monday, the same day that Clinton speaks. An Iranian official declined to confirm whether the Iranian president planned to come.

U.N. diplomats said it remained unclear whether Ahmadinejad would use the event to launch a political attack on the U.S. and European push for sanctions, or whether he would announce a new deal aimed at heading off council sanctions."

Netanyahu is taking up Obama's challenge for the moral high ground in case he strikes ...Iran

AsiaTimes/ here

"I want to work with Netanyahu," proclaimed Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday, quoted by the Jerusalem Post. "Try me," he said, noting his hopes that the Arab League would back his plan to resume proximity talks on May 1. "I say on behalf of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, that we are prepared for an agreement." He emphasized Netanyahu was "chosen by the Israeli people and elected by the Knesset [parliament]," and because of that it was his "duty to work with him".

This spectacular change of tone on the part of the man who, exactly a month ago, ruled out any form of negotiations without a settlement freeze, came on the heels of massive pressure from the American administration and an invitation for him to pay the White House an official visit next month. Talks, albeit indirect in format initially, are scheduled to restart in mid-May.

There are three main explanations of this unexpected behavior, and they all likely contribute in varying degrees to the developments. Perhaps, in a manner characteristic of Middle Eastern bargaining, Abbas has been bluffing all along with his obstinacy, and ..... Maybe he is feeling pressure from his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad - a darling of the American administration....

.... the Israeli government made some sort of a short-term pledge to US President Barack Obama.... It is even likely that Netanyahu won acquiescence from his right-wing coalition partners: a very striking development, which would indicate that any such concession would be short-lived.... Netanyahu is also taking up Obama's challenge for the moral high ground in case of a future confrontation between them. This could have profound implications in case of an Israeli attack on Iran. Given the widespread support which Israel enjoys, the Obama administration finds itself embroiled in an uphill public relations campaign every time it decides to confront the Israeli government openly. ...Netanyahu is setting up a bargaining strategy to use with Obama in case he chooses to go to war without American blessing: the settlement halt and progress in the negotiations will continue for as long as support on Iran is provided. This is, importantly, a compromise he can sell domestically as well, ... (more/here)

STRATFOR: "The US, Saudi Arabia & Egypt to exploit Iranian-Syrian disagreements over Iraq ... "

STRATFOR

"BARACK OBAMA “DROPPED IN” on a meeting between U.S. National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Monday. In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama joined Jones and Barak in discussions about the Iranian nuclear threat...

The American president joining the Jones-Barak meeting is significant given recent tensions between the United States and Israel over the Jewish state’s move to build additional settlements in the West Bank...

Beyond the fact that meaningful progress on the Israeli-Palestinian is not likely in the foreseeable future, the Obama administration has much bigger problems to deal with in the region, namely, an increasingly assertive Iran. The struggle with Iran also has its complexities, including Iraq, the nuclear issue, Afghanistan and Hezbollah. But Iran — despite its baggage — is one problem the United States has to deal with, and soon.

“Obama’s meeting with Barak helps in terms of reminding the Iranians that the U.S.-Israeli spat is temporary, and that there are limits to how far Tehran can exploit it.”

The problem is that Washington is neither able to impose an effective sanctions regime nor exercise the military option without unacceptable risks, so any diplomacy it engages in will be from a position of relative weakness. Therefore it has to try and improve its bargaining power. At present, the Iranians feel they have the upper hand in the struggle because of a number of regional cleavages.

Iran takes comfort in a host of regional dynamics. These include Iraq, Syria, Turkey ... and the American-Israeli rift. If the United States is to deal with Iran from a position of relative strength, it must first reshape the regional situation, at least as far as Iranian perception is concerned....... there are limits to how far Tehran can exploit it. Similarly, there are efforts by the United States, Saudi Arabia and Egypt to exploit Iranian-Syrian disagreements over Iraq to try and pull Damascus away from the Iranian orbit. Likewise, Washington is also hoping it can get Turkey to take a more firm stand against Iran.

The intent in all of this is to try and demonstrate to the Islamic republic that it does not exactly have the upper hand, and force it to change its behavior to reach a negotiated settlement. Meanwhile, there are signs that the Iranians might be willing to cut a deal. There have been reports about the Iranians relaying to the Saudis their desire to hold talks, and discussions between Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners about the possibility of Arab-Persian diplomacy.

Iran’s interest in such negotiations is to secure recognition from the Arab states for an Iranian regional role. Certain Arab quarters are of the opinion that such talks ought to be held in the interest of containing rising Iranian regional clout. The Saudis, however, are fearful that any such negotiations favor the Iranians more so than the Arabs, and are therefore reluctant.

But it is the Israelis who are the greatest opponents of any such regional settlements. Any greater alignment between the Arab states contradicts the Jewish state’s need to maintain divisions among its Arab neighbors. More importantly though is the need to prevent any regional settlement with Iran, which could rehabilitate the clerical regime within the international community.

This would explain recent Israeli claims that Syria has provided Hezbollah with Scud missiles, which were(the claims) likely designed to undermine any regional settlement move, especially one involving the Persians. Therefore, the United States faces a major challenge in terms of not just reaching a detente with Iran, but also making sure that such an arrangement does not threaten Israeli interests."

No comment ideed...

The Arabist, here

A 'book' (yes, with ink, pages & all...) by G W Bush

"... Due November ... Reportedly, the book will not be a traditional memoir, but rather "an account of key decisions in his life."

Jeffrey Feltman as Ambassador to Iceland

This is where Pat Lang sees the man ... SST/ here

"... Israel is an interested party in this matter. Are we to take their word for it? What does US intelligence say of this? This Hiatt editorial quoted Jeffrey Feltman a lot. Feltman's bias is clear. Why is he still at the State Department as Assistant Secretary for the Near East? Don't we need a new ambassador in Iceland?"

On Iraqi border, a US-Iran game of 'spy vs. spy'

McClatchy's/ here

".... As the U.S. military dismantles much larger bases elsewhere, the ones with fast-food outlets, beauty salons and Eastern European masseuses, commanders plan to keep the small border contingent in place as long as possible. Its job: to train Iraqi forces to protect al Sheeb and its environs, a 25-mile land mine-dotted stretch with deserts to the north and marshes to the south.

Where Iraqi officials envision a bustling tourist hub that will bring jobs and investment, U.S. officials see another potential foothold for Iran, which already provides electricity and water to the Iraqi border station. Once the last mines are cleared, a tedious and dangerous undertaking, al Sheeb crossing will open for tourists. The Americans aren't sure that the Iraqi infrastructure or border force is ready for such a massive influx and the accompanying security concerns.

"Really, the U.S. can counterbalance Iranian influence, whether soft or malign, only up to a certain point," said Army Maj. Daniel Dorado, 34, of Mililani, Hawaii, a fluent Arabic speaker who heads the U.S. transition team that advises Iraqi border forces at JSS Wahab. "But I don't see how we can counterbalance people coming through. We can't make more Iraqis."

The American soldiers at JSS Wahab are attached to the 4th Brigade of the Army's 1st Armored Division, out of Fort Bliss, Texas. They don't have to deal with the rocket fire and roadside bombs that target other outposts. Instead, they're locked in what one soldier described as a "spy vs. spy" scenario with Iran's security forces, which are so close that the American and Iranian units regularly spot one another on patrols....

In January, Dorado said, U.S. troops noticed a surveillance drone hovering above their camp in broad daylight. The Americans checked with their command and were told that no U.S. drones were in the area. They realized it was an Iranian aircraft spying on their post, a rare provocation. The drone stayed overhead for a few minutes and then left....

Although he still has doubts about whether Iran can be a good neighbor to Iraq, Qaisi said security seemed stable enough to shift focus to tourism possibilities at al Sheeb. Every week, cargo imports alone bring Iraq $95,000 in tariffs, or about $4.6 million a year. The money generated from the crossing will increase exponentially when the border opens to busloads of Iranian religious tourists headed for Iraq's legendary gold-domed Shiite shrines.

"This place is like an oil well that's just not open yet," Qaisi said......

"There's a lot of soft Iranian influence here through utilities. Now we have water and electricity that's Iranian, so you have another country providing utilities. What does that say about sovereignty?" Dorado said. "Yes, there will be economic benefit in the future, but at what expense?"

US & Israel reach "secret agreements on Jerusalem"... to protect Netanyahu

Maariv/ here

Israel and the US have reached secret agreements about construction in Jerusalem. Both sides agreed to leave the agreements between themselves and not make them public, and if they should be leaked nevertheless, deny them vigorously. The purpose is in order not to create difficulties for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the coalition, and particularly in the Likud party.

The agreements indicate that contrary to Israeli boasting, Netanyahu’s answer to Obama regarding Jerusalem was not “No.” It was something in the middle, a little closer to the far end (a freeze) than the close one (continued construction at full tilt). The most accurate translation for this agreement is “Yes, but.” It is possible that Netanyahu has learned something from the bad old days of Shimon Peres, during which he got the nickname “Yes and no.” Now it is Netanyahu’s turn.

The agreements were made in a very long series of meetings and discussions between the parties. Attorney Yitzhak Molcho worked for Netanyahu. Working on the American side was mostly Dan Shapiro, the director of the Middle East department at the National Security Council.

As far as anyone knows, the parties agreed that no construction freeze would be announced. On the contrary, Netanyahu may continue to announce that he did not agree to a freeze. But in reality, Netanyahu agreed to delay the Ramat Shlomo project by at least several years and not to issue any new construction tenders in Jerusalem. He also promised “to do as much as the law allows and use his full authority as prime minister to prevent unnecessary Israeli activity in the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. These agreements do not include the procedures that are already being carried out, such as, for example, the Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem.

Another agreement between the parties is that if Netanyahu should encounter a particularly severe crisis or heavy pressure, or if these agreements should be leaked, there will be a tendency to let him approve a small number of symbolic construction projects in secret coordination with the Americans so that it will continue to look as though he did not give in.

In the end, the agreement is a good and effective one. The Americans are moving forward with it, and the members of the forum of seven are willing to accept it as well. It is saying no and acting yes. In the current situation, if there are no last-minute surprises, there will soon be an announcement of the resumption of the proximity talks between the parties. The Palestinians will go with it, and the Americans will finally be able to finish the job and check off the first item on their to-do list.

They made a big strategic mistake in their insistence on a construction freeze in Jerusalem from the first moment. They paid dearly for it. Now they will try to make up for it, but they will find fairly quickly that the worst of all is still ahead.

Netanyahu is not where they think he is. The reports that the prime minister has offered the Palestinians a state with temporary borders are premature. The plan has existed for a long time. It was created by Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak (and also, separately, by Shaul Mofaz). Just as he did then, Netanyahu has expressed his agreement in secret, but hopes that something will come along to blow up the whole matter, and not move it forward. Prepare for the next crisis.

Allawi's candidates in limbo..

Reuters/ here

"... At least one of those barred on Monday for alleged ties to Saddam Hussein's banned Baath party was a winner for Iraqiya. Allawi's allies said they did not see the election result changing because the number of votes invalidated was small. They said any winning candidates affected would be replaced by the next Iraqiya nominee in line in the same constituency. But any reduction in Iraqiya's representation could reignite Sunni anger, just as the sectarian violence unleashed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion recedes..."

Political posturing? "... Iran’s private sector buys shares in Chinese banks ..."

Booz-Allen's PersiaHouse/ here

Mehr News – Summary translation by Persia House

April 13, 2010

As part of the new phase of Iran-China cooperation, Iran’s private sector has purchased shares in Chinese banks in order to eliminate certain banking and financial problems between the two countries’ private sectors.

Persia House Analysis:

US financial sanctions, and informal pressure against international financial institutions, have succeeded in complicating Iran’s trade and business dealings with other countries, including with its largest single trading partner, China. In response, Iran has continuously sought—and often found—ways to circumvent these sanctions. The result has been an impasse: sanctions have failed to change the policies of the Iranian government, but have hampered Iran’s trade relations, and increased the overall cost of doing business for Iranians.

In anticipation of another possible round of UN sanctions against Iran, Tehran has announced plans to strengthen financial ties with China in official and semi-official news outlets. Expanding Iran’s financial ties to its key trading partner would certainly reduce some of the pressure of financial sanctions on Iranian trade and business. It would also remove some of the financial complications facing Chinese foreign direct investment in Iran. For the most part, however, these recent announcements are mere political posturing, and unlikely to result in any near-term developments.

• According to articles in Mehr News and Press TV, Iran has proposed purchasing 20 percent of the shares of Chinese banks. According to the Mehr News article, a 20-percent stake in these banks would entitle the shareholder to a seat on the board of directors, and afford them the opportunity to block any decision to limit the bank’s business dealings with Iran. It is doubtful, however, that Beijing would allow Iranians to take seats on the boards of directors of its banks. Even if Iran is able to buy its way onto the board of directors of Chinese banks, it will almost certainly not be able to substantially affect the policies of these banks on an issue as sensitive as Sino-American cooperation. The head of the Iran-China Chamber of Commerce, Assadollah Asgaroladi, has in fact denied the Mehr News report in an interview with Aftab News, saying that no Iranian has purchased shares in any Chinese bank.* According to Asgaroladi, such a purchase would take place on the Chinese stock exchange, and would require large amounts of capital, as well as a prior agreement between the two countries.
• According to the same media reports, Iran has also proposed establishing an Iran-China bank to process financial transactions between the two countries.** Such a bank would enable Iran to avoid working through European and other Asian banks, since these financial institutions have proven susceptible to US pressure to limit their dealings with Iran. An Iran-China bank, if established, would help ease many of the financial difficulties faced by Iranian businesses seeking to trade with China, and would facilitate bilateral projects between the countries. The Chinese would be certain to face pressure from the United States not to establish a joint bank with the Iranians. And while Beijing will likely continue to use Iran as a lever in its dealings with Washington, China will almost certainly favor its key strategic relationship with the United States over strengthened financial ties to Iran. In fact, Asgaroladi has said that he proposed the creation of such a bank some time ago, but that he is no longer hopeful that the project can go forward given “existing sanctions, and the international situation.”

"Obama’s top ten insults against Israel"

You have to excuse Gardiner who seems to be smoking something or better yet, shooting something while hanging from a tree... Telegraph/ here

"... a list of major insults by the Obama administration against America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel....

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain...

1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House

In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington......

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel

In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (run that by me again?), which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence.....

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians

In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:....

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations

In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel...

Maliki & Allawi 'deal' ... while Sadr waits in the wings ...

The Independent/ here

"... The proposal is for Mr Maliki and Mr Allawi to split the four-year prime ministerial term, according to Dr Mahmoud Othman, who is a veteran member of the Baghdad parliament.

This weekend's threat by the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to send his much-feared Mehdi Army militia back onto the streets in the wake of Friday's bomb attacks has only served to underline the growing crisis in Iraq since the inconclusive general election last month.

Mr Sadr said he would only reactivate his Shia militiamen under government control "to be formal brigades in the Iraqi army or police to protect shrines, mosques, markets, houses and cities". But the return of the Mehdi Army would weaken the government and terrify Sunni Arabs in Iraq because of the role it played in the sectarian slaughter of 2006-7...."

Ah, OK... It's Officials in the US administration who leaked Hezbollah Scuds suspicions ...

'Michel Sleiman & Amb. to the UN Nawaf Salam ...'

YNEtnews/ here

"Officials in the US administration were the ones who leaked suspicions that Hezbollah had acquired Scud missiles from Syria, in order to "lay the groundwork for a proposal to the UN Security Council, to put together a resolution on the deployment of UN forces along the Syrian-Lebanese border," the Kuwaiti Al-Rai newspaper reported Sunday.

The paper quoted Western diplomatic sources as saying that the aim of the deployment would be to stopper a supply route to Hezbollah, which allows it to hoard missiles in Lebanon.... The sources said the "Scud missile crisis" is aimed at preventing further escalation that may lead to war.

On linkage, linkage & ...linkage

Basically, according to Haass, the Question of Palestine has no merit by itself and should be relegated to another time ... Richard Haass in the WSJ/ here

"... But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs....

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.

Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Nor is it clear what effect successful peacemaking would have on Arab governments. The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. Al Qaeda was initially motivated by a desire to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels. Its larger goal is to spread Islam in a form that closely resembles its pure, seventh-century character. Lip service is paid to Palestinian goals, but the radical terrorist agenda would not be satisfied by Palestinian statehood...."

'Gates' memo leak': "The Pentagon’s frustration steming from the White House’s unwillingness to embrace containment as its Iran strategy..."

The Leveretts writing in Politico/ here

Last week’s partial leak of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s January memo on Iran, and the later statements from Gates and Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, reveal two crucial points.

First, the Obama administration is deeply divided about its Iran policy, beyond the current effort to get new sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council. Second — and more important — there is a serious risk that President Barack Obama may eventually be maneuvered into ordering military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

Gates’s memo — which its leaker described to The New York Times as a “wake-up call” about the administration’s lack of a long-term strategy for dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program — is consistent with the defense secretary’s long-standing views on Iran.

Gates publicly questions whether attacking Iranian nuclear targets will accomplish anything of strategic significance. He recognizes that potential downsides — including retaliation against U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq — could be severely damaging to Washington’s regional position.

Gates also seems to believe that the United States can “contain” an Iran that has mastered uranium enrichment but stops short of actually building a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran detonates a device, in Gates’s view it should still be eminently containable.

In sum, Gates believes the United States does not need to go to war over Iran’s nuclear program. He is strongly supported by the senior uniformed military leadership, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

But senior officers privately express concern that this Pentagon view is not getting the traction it should in the administration’s policymaking process.

The administration is indeed continuing efforts to boost the defensive capabilities of its Arab Gulf allies. But some officers say the State Department is not moving ahead with the diplomatic moves required for a containment strategy — like negotiating the terms of U.S. nuclear guarantees for these states.

Gates’s remarks after the leak suggest that he wrote the memo to leapfrog the interagency process and “tee up” for presidential decision a number of specific items needed for serious pursuit of a containment strategy.

Essentially, the Pentagon’s frustration stems from the White House’s unwillingness to embrace containment as its Iran strategy.

We do not know who leaked the Gates memo. But the “senior officials” who did so were clearly seeking to use their selective description to catalyze more robust planning for potential military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets — the very option that Gates has consistently opposed.

This explains Gates’s public claim that his memo had been “mischaracterized” by the leaker. It also explains Fluornoy’s later statement that an attack against Iran is “off the table in the near term.” (Though, after White House intervention, Gates’s spokesman walked back Flournoy’s comment.

The reality is that a cadre of senior National Security Council officials — including Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Dennis Ross, senior director for the central region (including Iran) — is resisting the adoption of containment as the administration’s Iran strategy.

For some, containment is problematic because it would be interpreted in Israel and pro-Israeli circles here as giving up on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state. Republicans could use this to label Obama as weak on national security. Others in this camp may actually believe that Washington should be preparing for military action against Iran.

As Ross told us before he returned to government service in the Obama administration, President George W. Bush’s successor would probably need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

Pursuing diplomatic initiatives early in Obama’s tenure, Ross said, would be necessary to justify potential military action to domestic and international constituencies.

That is precisely what the administration has done — first, by pursuing halfhearted diplomatic initiatives toward Tehran, then, when Iran did not embrace them, blaming Iran for the impasse.

Adopting containment as the administration’s posture toward Iran might undermine some White House officials’ efforts to prepare the political ground for an eventual presidential decision approving military strikes. ...

Gates is correct that a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation would be severely damaging to Washington’s strategic position. But containment is an inherently unstable and dangerous posture — perhaps likely to end up sparking a U.S.-Iranian war.

Meanwhile, failing to pursue serious, strategically grounded engagement with Tehran could continue to leave the administration’s Middle East policies in free-fall — accelerating the erosion of U.S. influence in this critical region.