Published on August 27th, 2012 | by Marsha B. Cohen
12Martin Indyk: Israel “cried wolf”
Having pulled all the stops to avert an Israeli attack against Iran last spring that never happened, has the Obama administration given all that it has to Israel’s hawkish leaders only to learn that it has been played? If so, how might this affect the US response to Israeli warnings that it will attack Iran before the 2012 presidential election?
Martin Indyk, a former US Ambassador to Israel during the Clinton years who now heads foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, is reported by the Sheldon Adelson-owned Israel Hayom to have told Israel Army Radio on August 23 that:
The administration was convinced that Israel was going to attack in the spring. That was the official assessment, everyone ran to battle stations, mobilized, engaged with the Israelis, did whatever they could to calm them down and make it clear that the President [Barack Obama] was absolutely committed to Israel’s security and to ensuring that Iran would not get nuclear weapons. That seemed to work fine. But after that, the administration concluded that Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Defense Minister [Ehud] Barak were engaged in a complete bluff, and having succeeded in bluffing them, I think they were wary of being bluffed again.
When Obama met with Netanyahu in March, according to Indyk, the president came away convinced that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities was about to occur. He did everything possible to reassure Israel’s leader that the US would do whatever was necessary to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. “Apparently, Israel complied, as no attack has yet taken place,” according to the religious nationalist news site, Arutz Sheva.
A diplomatic success story? Hardly, according to The Jerusalem Post:
After no Israeli strike took place, Indyk said that the US officials felt as though they had been duped by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s ruse. The former ambassador added that there is a sense within the US government that Washington is once again being misled by Israeli declarations and leaks.
It’s not clear whether Indyk is working for or against the President in suggesting that the Obama administration feels it was played by Netanyahu and Ehud Barak. Or, by stating that after having been misled about Israel’s intentions, the administration remains committed to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons but views Israel as “the boy who cried wolf” and is therefore taking less seriously the hyperbolic hints that Israel will attack Iran prior to the US election. It’s possible that Indyk’s current message intentionally contrasts with the recent recommendation of fellow Clinton adviser Dennis Ross that Obama try to avert an Israeli military strike on Iran by promising Netanyahu even more armaments and military support.
The author of the Clinton administration’s “dual containment” policy that simultaneously targeted Iran and Iraq (instead of playing the two Persian Gulf powers off against one another as traditional “balance of power ” strategic logic would have suggested), Indyk has served as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs, Special Assistant to the President, and the US National Security Council’s senior director for Near East and South Asia. Bill Clinton appointed Indyk as Ambassador to Israel in 1993. A former Research Director at the American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Indyk was the founding director of the Washington Institution for Near East Policy (WINEP), an AIPAC-created think tank dedicated to influencing the executive branch on Middle East foreign policy while AIPAC focused on lobbying members of Congress. Indyk is also the founding director of Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy. During the 2008 presidential primaries, Indyk backed Hillary Clinton, but supported Barack Obama when he won the Democratic nomination.
In the past several months, however, Indyk has grown critical of Obama’s foreign policy. As co-author of Bending History: Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy (with Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Lieberthal) he classified Obama as a pragmatist who opted for reasonable policies — often the least-worst available options — “with an approach typified by thoroughness, reasonably good teamwork, and flexibility when needed”. Indyk told Nahum Barnea of the Hebrew-language Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot in an interview coinciding with the book’s publication that despite the greatness of the vision he presented, “Obama’s cold, analytical and aloof attitude didn’t suit the Middle Eastern climate.”
In a February 29 op-ed in the New York Times, Indyk criticized the “fundamental design flaw” in the Obama administration’s Iran sanctions policy. Indyk warned that “crippling” sanctions designed to “persuade the Israelis that there is a viable alternative to a preventive strike” could backfire as “the Iranians conclude that they have no choice but to press ahead in acquiring the ultimate means of assuring the regime’s survival.” Furthermore, Indyk opined, the constant warnings of Obama’s military advisers about the grave consequences of a military strike by Israel might signal that the US can be counted upon to restrain the Israelis from launching a war against Iran. Indyk also suggested that election year rhetoric might impact Iran’s strategic calculus. The louder Obama insists that that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that that Iran will respond defiantly:
The only way out of the vicious circle is for Khamenei to understand that Obama is not seeking his overthrow — that behind the negotiating door lies a path to Iran’s peaceful use of nuclear power and not a corridor to the gallows. But how, while pursuing sanctions designed to cut Iran’s economic jugular, can Obama credibly signal this to Khamenei without opening himself up to the charge of weakness? Any hint of reassurance to the Iranian regime will surely be seized upon by his Republican rivals as a sign of appeasement.
Yet during an Yediot Aharonot interview at the end of May, Indyk recommended that Israelis be wary of US efforts to negotiate with Iran. “The Israeli response must be skeptical, regardless of what exactly is agreed upon there,” Indyk said. “When others are negotiating in your stead, you have every reason to suspect you are being sold out.”
In his latest interview, Indyk’s message seems to be that Obama has nothing left to promise Netanyahu:
Essentially, the U.S. had done everything it could to reassure Israel, the president doesn’t have anything more in his quiver, no other arrow to shoot to reassure it. I think this time around they thought, ‘Here we go again, there’s nothing more we can do we’ll just learn to live with it.
What exactly is Indyk’s game?
About the Author
Marsha B. Cohen is an analyst specializing in Israeli-Iranian relations and US foreign policy towards Iran and Israel. Her articles have been published by PBS/Frontline's Tehran Bureau. IPS, Alternet, Payvand and Global Dialogue. She earned her PhD in International Relations from Florida International University, and her BA in Political Philosophy from Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Related Posts
Little Support in Washington for Kerry’s Mideast Efforts →
Kerry’s Latest Mideast Trip Doomed Before It Starts →
Nuclear Iran Unlikely to Tilt Regional Power Balance – Report →
I can’t know what Indyk’s game is without knowing what his and Netanyahu’s larger strategic calculus is. First, as former NSC member General Keane has said about Obama: I am convinced Obama has absolutely NO intention to attack Iran pre-emptively under any circumstances after his re-election. So, what is Israel to do under such circumstances? Given that Iran will continue to develop its ability to ‘breakout’ at some point in the future to weaponize its nuclear program, regardless of what ‘negotiations’ might be envisaged now for 2013, and given understandable US reluctance to strike Iran under almost all conceivable conditions, I am of the opinion that, provided enough Knesset cabinet members can be persuaded, that Bibi will strike Ian in the next month, relying on the very reliable US government response to support Israel unconditionally in the run-up to the November elections. Sure the US was played back in the spring. But striking now, at the end of the summer, will show that Israel does NOT bluff, and will also show that in the prior 6 months Israel was bending over backwards to allow sanctions and diplomacy to work as long as possible before Iran began to enter the zone of immunity from an Israeli strike. The strike on Iran will also remove any international attention from the Palestinians and achieve the strategic objective of the right-wing in Israel and AIPAC to solidify Israeli territorial gains in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and, in the subsequent multi-year turmoil in the Middle East, to forever lock in Israeli domination of Greater Israel. So here is the biggest gamble in Israel’s existence. Risk suffering the inevitable surprises and reversals with a strike now on Iran having the massive US military presence in the Persian Gulf hemming in Iran and having the still strong political support from the US because of the Red States and the Christian Zionists’ vigorous backing of right wing Israel…or squander this opportunity, appear weak before Iran’s growing militancy and hegemony in the Middle East, and allow public attention to re-focus on the Palestinian issue as the world concludes that Israel was only bluffing all along. With Peres’ public anti-strike stance in Israel, and all the other opposition, it remains a close call, a 50-50 proposition, but I’m betting that in the final analysis, in the next few weeks with Iran’s military infrastructure a little more deteriorated because of the cumulative effects of the economic sanctions, that Bibi will roll the dice. We’re on a razor’s edge alright.
Indyk has always been a bit vague as to his own agenda. But Netanyahu’s is the real question. So far he has actually proven rather cautious, but this may be the one he defines himself by. The previous commenter set out the calculus to strike well, but not the risks. Israel could suffer huge losses (far more than hundreds) if it gets out of control, Iran and Hezbollah and Syria have spoken of targeting vulnerable sites in Israel that could cause severe damage, and may engage in other forms of ‘revenge’ attacks, and Iran certainly will regardless (Bushehr alone could kill vast numbers slowly). The world economy could stagger into even worse depression, and the blowback for Israel’s image and popularity could be severe as a result. One can see why it has not happened yet, but there is a feeling in the air that this clash that has been building for so long is going to erupt finally, all the chips seem to be lining up, and despite the risks it seems Netanyahu and Barak will not let what they may consider the last chance to pass, unless both within and outside Israel the chorus of opposition is overwhelming.
It’s been left far too late to be doable without possibly disastrous consequences for all.
Israel bending over backwards to allow the Iranians to grovel and obey their sovereign behest? Plumstead’s amazing formulation shows us how successfully the Zionists have established widespread belief in their “right” to dominate the entire Middle East, not just from the Nile to the Euphrates, and of course the entire Washington establishment….de Gaulle was right in summing up their arrogance and lust for power. Indeed, who can rely on being outside Greater Israel. Appeasement of these two gangster states, the US and Israel, does not work. It would be nice to imagine that the IAEA meeting to consider nuclear weapons in the Middle East will start some pullback from this slavish appeasement…..
Indyk engages in too much sock puppetry to know “What exactly is Indyk’s game?”
Indyk was research director of during the Joint Israeli Ministry of Economics/AIPAC data theft of classified US confidential business information in the mid-1980s.
During the investigation, the FBI uncovered allegations that an Israeli intelligence officer was on the staff of AIPAC at the time it was negotiating the duty-free entry of Israeli goods into the US.
http://www.IRmep.org/ila/economy
All of the economic propaganda coming out of AIPAC about the trade issue then was attributed “Patricia Blair.”
Whatever he’s up to, one thing is certain: it is to advance the Israeli government, rather than any American interest.
Marsha Cohen writes”Having pulled all the stops to avert an Israeli attack against Iran last spring that never happened, has the Obama administration given all that it has to Israel’s hawkish leaders only to learn that it has been played? ”
Pulled out all the stops? The US has many other stops to pull to avert the unprovoked aggression on the part of Israel with which they have been conniving. Even an official inquiry into the unprovoked 1967 attack by Israel on USS Liberty might give the guilty parties – both in Israel and their quisling in the US – pause for thought. But the US has larger weapons than that – much larger weapons, I believe. And not just commercial ones….
Marsha Cohen’s outrageous assumptions – in effect, that the US must follow Israel’s every policy like a heavily armed lapdog – demonstrates the truth of Cartwright’s comments. The gentile governments are even more disgusting than the likes of Netanyahu and Barak in their false pretence of neutrality
Mr. Indyk is weaving a tall tale. Neither the US nor the Israelis had any intention of attacking Iran. Israel was fully briefed on the war simulation results carried out in Jan-Feb 2012. This was a comprehensive and lengthy study. Under all reasonable war scenarios considered in the simulated war games Israel suffered devastating losses. Under one scenario, the chaos in Israel would provide sufficient cover for the Palestinian armed resistance to cause major security havoc on the ground. Mr. Netanyahu has been accused of being a “mad man” at times but in reality we all know he is a very shrewd politician.
Mr. Indyk is simply attacking the President because Mr. Obama did not bend to the wishes of Mr. Netanyahu – which had little to do with Iran and a lot to do with the Israel’s Arab neighborhood. We should ask Mr. Indyk to come clean and tell us what Israel is really asking the US taxpayers to do!
I agree with Uvi Avneri on this: there won’t be an attack. Israel’s biggest vulnerability is that it simply cannot take losses. The outcome of any strike on Iran; whether by Israel or the US – or by Israeli jets with US markings; is too uncertain with Iranian medium range ballistic missiles targeting Tel Aviv. The Lebanese debacle, against the relatively weak forces of Hezbollah, proved how fickle is Israeli resolve in the face of a courageous foe – the government’s initial 85% public approval rating withered, once people started getting killed, and we all know the humiliating outcome.
Iran is just too capable of hitting back. Even with the dubious security of Iron Dome, planners have to prepare for civilian losses in excess of a thousand. Unsustainable politically.
I disagree with most of the above assessments. Israel does not have the luxury of writing off Iran’s belligerence as merely shrill rhetoric. They have little to no strategic depth, an Alamo complex rightly assumed from sixty years of war and the historical trauma of the Holocaust. No, they can’t accept heavy losses. They also, however, can’t accept existental threats. It’s not about politics or belaying dealing with the Palestinians. The Mossad was wrong about the Yom Kippur war.Peres voted NOT to attack Osirak in ’81. Their opposition to this potential strike has little bearing on what will happen. Look for a strike, with careful cost-benefit considerations weighed in, to happen very soon, IMO.
The Jewish community in the United States has had quite enough of Bendyamind Netanscrewyou. There will be no attack on Iran. Intelligent Jews will not allow it. He will not survive his shame. There will be an end to this fascist and messianic Prime Minister in 2013 as he will resign due to criminal indictment for corruption…
already in progress … the same story as most of Israel’s leadership over the past 10 years. Bendyamind Netanscrewyou overplayed his cards and his game of brinksmanship is a lost bet. History will slowly simmer him with the rest of the Neocon nutjobs. Obama will be win the election and take the gloves off against the Israeli right wing in his second term for being so blatantly brutal, arrogant, and ignorant. Israel’s percieved position of power within the United States Foreign Policy establishment is an illusion. The movement away from Israeli and American right wing strategies has already been decided. The awakening is here and now.
Interesting discussion in both article and comments…I have reached the following conclusions :It is obvious that both the US and Israeli intelligence services have found clandestine nuclear facilities elsewhere in Iran , the presence of which are unknown to the IAEA (which regularly monitors all the other Iranian sites..). Also clear judging by the frequent , casual talk in the mass media about striking nuclear facilities of any nature, is that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of nuclear contamination / fallout , either from the bombed facilities, or by use of weapons containing depleted uranium, leaving the immediate vicinity of the attacked site , and spreading out killing thousands …and that the fallout will simply stay neatly within Iranian borders and not spread to Gulf Arab countries or to others in the north such as Azerbijan and Armenia.. No possibility of Israel itself getting a whiff of the fallout / contamination…On another note , depleted uranium ,used in both Gulf wars, and suspected to be the cause of the Gulf War illness suffered by many US war veterans ,plus Hiroshima-type birth defects in Iraq ( and children of the same Gulf War Vets ), was detected in the atmosphere in Britain…The irony is that those pushing the regime change agenda ( which is the real motivation for the concern about Iran) may find that they cause regime change elsewhere in the region ( including Israel),especially if fallout / contamination spreads ..
Regardless of how well or badly Obama has played his Israel hand, he sure has allowed Israeli untrustworthiness and deviousness to emerge for the world to see.
As a consequence, Israel has far fewer friends in the US than it did during the Bush era. It’s almost as if Obama had planned it that way.
But all that rubbish about the US’s vow to defend unconditionally Israel’s “security” had little to do with “friendship” anyway, and a whole lot to do with Washington’s expectations that Israel’s regional military supremacy would help keep the lid on things in the Middle East.
Well, Israel made sure that it did a pretty lousy job of that — the Israelis have been totally useless to Washington throughout this “Arab Spring.” So what are they worth now?
What will happen to the “sacred relationship” when the US has completed its “pivot” to the Pacific?
Dave Robert’s observations about fallout are very realistic – and, as he says, there is no certainty that Israel itself could escape a minor dose (a big deterrent right there).
I don’t see where existence of ‘clandestine nuclear facilities ..unknown to the IAEA’ can be inferred – apart from the barrage of disinformation, reminiscent of the Iraq ‘yellow cake’ affair, coming from the usual sources. Having said that, if Iran does have a covert weapons program who could blame them, with daily threats coming from two nuclear powers?
Returning to the supposed Israeli strike: before ever that happened (and it won’t) the citizens of all Israel’s major cities would need to be intensively prepared in readiness to receive incoming missiles – giving Iran many weeks of warning. And don’t forget the possibility of Dimona or Nahal Sorek getting hit!