"Constraining America's Options"

Steve Clemons has a very interesting piece that argues that Israel, in its reaction to the kidnapping of its 2 soldiers, is working to take certain US foreign policy options it doesn't like of the table. Or as Clemons puts it Israel's is trying to curb the US's Deal Making in the Middle East.

I have argued that Israel's response to Hezbollah has been precisely what Hezbollah wanted (as its response to Hamas has similarly been what Hamas wanted), but I would always be at a loss to explain why Israel would play into their hands. I would usually attribute it to the goal of Israeli hawks to ruin any type of political solution that would require something they oppose with all their being: compromise, giving something to get something (because they want it all). But I was confused as I never saw Olmert and Peretz as unreasonable hawks. Here Steve Clemons provides a possible explanation:

The Israeli response to the Hezbollah incursion is exactly what Hezbollah wanted. Adversaries rarely give each other the behaviors the other actually desires unless there are other objectives involved.

My view is that three broad threats were evolving for Israel from the American side of the equation. One one front, the U.S. will be attempting to settle some kind of new equilibrium in Iraq with fewer U.S. forces and some face-saving partial withdrawal. To accomplish this and maintain any legitimacy in the eyes of important nations in the region -- particularly among close U.S. partners among the Gulf Cooperation Council states -- America "might have" tried to do some things that constituted a broad new bargain with the Arab Middle East. The U.S. had even previously flirted, along with the Brits, in trying to get Syria on a Libya like track and out of the international dog house.

There was also pressure building to push Hamas -- or at least the "governing wing" of it -- towards a posture that would move dramatically closer to a recognition of Israel.

A development I specifically point out as a reason Hamas' militant wing may have attacked and kidnapped the Israeli soldiers in Gaza; to bring on the Israeli response (which it did) and destroy any possibility of such a political development. Steve Clemons seems to be making the point that perhaps the Israeli leadership ALSO saw it in their interest to destabilize any political progress made with the PA leadership and for US political progress with Syria (it prefers US hostility towards it).

Abbas was becoming increasingly entrepreneurial in creating opportunities for the constructive players in Hamas to squirm towards eventual negotiations with Israel that could possibly be packaged in terms of "final status negotiations" on the borders and terms of a new Palestinian state. George W. Bush is the first President to actually call the Palestine territories "Palestine" and may have eventually come around on trying to pump up Abbas's legitimacy as the father of a new and different state. I am doubtful of this scenario -- but some in Israel had serious concerns about this unfolding.

Lastly, despite lots of tit-for-tat tensions and enormous mistrust, Iran and the U.S. were tilting towards a deal to negotiate about Iran's nuclear pretensions and other goals. Some in Israel viewed all three of these potential policy courses for the U.S. -- a broad deal with the Arab Middle East, a new push on final status negotiations with the Palestinians, and a deal to actually negotiate directly with Iran -- as negative for Israel


The flamboyant, over the top reactions to attacks on Israel's military check points and the abduction of soldiers -- which I agree Israel must respond to -- seems to be part establishing "bona fides" by Olmert, but far more important, REMOVING from the table important policy options that the U.S. might have pursued.

Israel is constraining American foreign policy in amazing and troubling ways by its actions. And a former senior CIA official and another senior Marine who are well-versed in both Israeli and broad Middle East affairs, agreed that serious strategists in Israel are more concerned about America tilting towards new bargains in the region than they are either about the challenge from
Hamas or Hezbollah or showing that Olmert knows how to pull the trigger.

Or, they don't want the US to make nice with Muslim nations of the Middle East so they conspire to eliminate the possibility of the US making nice with them. Israel is close to war with Syria and perhaps Iran, in essence forcing the issue to the point where the US will have to decide to side with Israel and forgo (as if the situation as it already stands today doesn't already) political negotiations with Iran and Syria. They don't want the US to be able to cut deals in the Middle East. In doing so they threaten our national interest and well-being.

How should the US respond to such manipulation by Israel? Well, we do provide much funding to Israel, perhaps someone should break the politically charged taboo subject of using the massive funding as leverage in moderating the actions of the Israelis. Ideas?