Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Say it ain't so, Joe
It's hard to tell exactly what Joe Biden was trying to say this morning on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous. But his remarks are being widely interpreted as a green light for an Israeli strike on Iran. If that isn't the case, Biden needs to issue a strong clarification immediately. If it is, then he has just committed the worst foreign policy blunder of the Obama administration.
Here's what Biden said:
STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.
Is that the right approach?
BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.
What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.
If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?
BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.
That sounds an awful lot like a green light -- especially when paired with the poorly sourced Times of London story suggesting that the Saudis had agreed to facilitate an Israeli airstrike (there doesn't seem to be anything to it beyond John Bolton's wishful thinking, but it helps fuel a crisis atmosphere). It's not obvious that it actually is such a green light -- but that's how it is being interpreted by Israelis across the spectrum and by the Arab media (few differences between the Saudi al-Arabiya and al-Sharq al-Awsat on the one hand, and al-Jazeera and al-Quds al-Arabi on the other side of the great Arab divide).
If that's the case, and Israel takes up the offer, then the politics of the Middle East are about to take a sudden, potentially disastrous turn for the worse. An Israeli strike on Iran would almost certainly fail to seriously set back its nuclear program, and almost certainly would not lead the Iranian people to rise up against the regime (although one has to pause... has John Bolton ever been wrong about such a thing before?). It would almost certainly terminate the efforts of the reformist camp to challenge the results of the election and rally the Iranian public around the flag -- as attacks by the most hated foreign enemy of any country generally do even during times of turbulent politics (see: Iran, 1980).
Does it really need to be said that such an attack would radicalize the region, and place a wide range of American interests at risk -- especially since Biden's comment will be cited forever as evidence that the attack had an American imprimatur? Even if the attack does not happen, Biden's comment will likely further inflame the regional atmosphere, while helping the Iranian hardliners, who will use it as evidence of malign American intentions, throwing away much of the value of Obama's carefully and appropriately nuanced response to the unfolding crisis.
Look (to use a Bidenism), nobody could really object to Biden's statement that any state has the sovereign right to act when it feels existentially threatened. In fact, he may have just been trying to say the opposite of how this is being read --- that sovereign states have the right to defend themselves, but that the U.S. would also define its own national interests. But he had to understand how such a statement would be received, with the ink not even dry on John Bolton's ham-handed agitation for just such an American permission slip for such an attack.
And he might have added to his entirely appropriate understanding of Israeli perceptions and concerns that the United States also has vital national interests at stake. An Israeli strike on Iran would likely throw all the progress in Iraq into grave danger, a reality of which American commanders in Iraq have routinely warned in public and private. That might not matter much to the Israeli government, but it matters a lot to the American government. The same for the negative impact it would have on efforts to achieve a two-state solution... something else which might suit Netanyahu just fine, but not the U.S.
Why would Biden have made a statement which so radically undermines Obama's policy towards Iran? Maybe it reflects bad new advice coming from a new NSC adviser of vague portfolio. Maybe it's a clumsy attempt to ratchet up some pressure on the Iranian regime without actually doing anything, without regard to the spiral dynamics it could kick into gear. Or maybe it is just a major Biden gaffe, not a dramatic departure in the Obama administration's policy. That would still be bad, but would be salvagable. Either way, the administration urgently needs to come forward quickly with a restatement of its policy -- and make sure the Israelis and others in the region understand it clearly -- or else it risks paying some extraordinarily serious costs.
UPDATE: a senior White House source tells me that this is being misreported, and points me to this from White House spokesman Tommy Vietor:
The Vice President refused to engage hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed. Our friends and allies, including Israel, know that the President believes that now is the time to explore direct diplomatic options, as with the P5+1."
Good. This needs aggressive pushback though, because the regional media is overwhelmingly reporting the "green light" headline interpretation of Biden's remark. Time to flex those public diplomacy and strategic communications muscles, folks...
LAST UPDATE (Monday morning): a variety of comments from assorted well-placed worthies have come my way over the last day, some online and others privately. Most suggest that Biden's comments were not meant to change U.S. policy, and that if anything he meant to distance the U.S. from any Israeli strike (though a few speculate that it was actually meant to strengthen the U.S. bargaining position ahead of the Moscow talks). If that's the case, then it is only that much more important to repeat that his comments are being nigh-universally presented in the Middle Eastern media (Israeli and Arab, at least) as a "green light." If that wasn't the intended signal, then the administration needs to recognize that its signaling has gone awry and clear it up before it's too late...
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to
STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?
BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.
In such a fundamental disagreement we would not tell them they can't do that, any more than we would tell iran they cannot have nuclear plants. The most we can do is shoot down their planes, capture the surviving pilots, and place the nation under blockade. But we will not dictate what they can and cannot do.
I think that would have expressed it more clearly.
So, remember when Bush Senior had Quayle for vice president and people joked that he chose Quayle to make himself unassassinable? I think Obama is probably now unimpeachable. No sane person would want Obama out of office unless Biden goes first.
accidental doublepost
1
Biden
I took away from Vice President Biden's remarks exactly what Lynch says here Biden was trying to say: that Israel has its interests, and we have ours.
I would have preferred one of the "I don't want to get into hypotheticals" responses Biden has deployed with respect to other subjects. The Iranian government's reaction to post-election protests is something I think American officials can take advantage of by raising in public a number of subjects, but this isn't one of them. But as a practical matter, an American "green light" for an Israeli strike on Iranian enrichment facilities would need to be a lot more involved than a response from the Vice President on the "This Week" program anyway.
Hello! I am also
Hello! I am also disappointed about USA vice-president Joe Biden comments about Iran and Israeal, because they can lead to war.
So I wrote letter to president Barack Obama:
"Hello, president Barack Obama!
First, I want say thanks for your great job like a one of the leaders of free world - evan I not agree with all your policies, I respect your choise to stand for principles and qulitative work to serve American and (how I think) world people.
I writting this messiage because in 5th of July I heard information that your vice-president Joe Biden interview to ABC television said that Israel is entitle to choose what to do with Iran. This is information is there: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/Story?id=8002421&page=2 .
I am dissapointed with this remarks because they can give Israel wrong signal that this country can attack Iran without criticism form USA. I am strongly against any military action against Iran. First, there is no clear evidence that Iran is trying to make nuclear wepoans (remember Iraq - many thought that there is weapons of mass destructin). Second, in military action can be killed innocent man and woman - and it is realy terriable possiability what you can't allow happened. Third, there is place to use diplomatic ways. Fourth, without United Nations Security Council sanction war will broke international law.
So, please, president Obama, come out publicly and clarify, that USA will not support military action against Iran because our value is life of human beings and because diplomatic efforts are not spent.
And please talk with Joe Biden let he understand that he is in powerfull office and he can't say things what will give wrong signal and can be a cause of dead human-beings and crime (because outlaw war is crime).
Please come with anti-war possition publicly, because Joe Biden about this issue also talk publicly. I count on you, Mr. president B. Obama!
Let God bless you and your great job!
P.S. Please sent this copy also to your vice-president.
P.S.S. I am writting again because I made mistake with Joe Biden name - I'sorry!"
http://ainars.blogiem.lv/
I doubt a saying of "We were
I doubt a saying of "We were misinterpreted!" will hold much water now. You know how the skeptical side of the Arab media will take this - they'll latch on to this statement, and ignore the official retraction.
It seems more like a "Bidenism" than anything planned. Perhaps they've kept Biden out of the loop for so long, nobody thought to explicitly warn him or prep him against this type of thing before he went on-air.
The nuclear elephant
in the room is that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Nuclear Israel is not a signatory to the NPT treaties, has engaged in proliferation activity in the past (w/ India, apartheid S. Africa, France), and reportedly threatened to use its nuclear arsenal to defend occupied Sinai in '73, drawing the US into DEFCON 2 confrontation with the Soviets.
US weapons and tech exports to Israel are prohibited by our own non proliferation laws and ratified treaties. Sale of F-15's with nuclear delivery capability are only the most obvious example of the US being in breach of our own anti-proliferation policy and law.
For the US/Biden to posit that Israel is existentially threatened by Iran turns the actual situation on its head.
- Israel has offensive nuke 'opacity', targeted on Iran.
- Israel has long range conventional capability that is overtly targeting Iranian uranium facilities, in a way that would scatter radiation over civilian populations.
- The Israeli attack on Iran that Biden is talking about would amount to radiological dirty bombing.
- The credible threat is an act of assault, WMD terror against Iranian citizens, and execution would be WMD battery, a war crime.
Israeli 'nuclear opacity' is driving an arms race in the ME that isn't confined to Iran, except by diplo-press omerta. Let's get real, take off the blindfold, and discuss policy that recognizes the fundamental fact of who is threatening use of nuclear weapons and radiological terror today, and that Israeli nuclear doctrine is partly in defense of territorial occupation and annexation.
Loose cannon
Biden is well know for shooting off his mouth. Just another unfortunate comment.
context in public diplomacy
is very difficult to control, since a comment in one time and place is quoted and re-used by advocates of extreme positions. But when the VP comes back from the Gulf and appears on a premier Sunday policy show, he was rehearsed and speaking ex officio for at least a facet of Team Obama's position. The 'existential threat'' statement in question was repeated; it was 'message of the day' or at least Biden's part of it.
Biden's rather vocal endorsement of zionism as a candidate does offer the WH some deniability, opportunity for Adm. Mullen to rebalance on another network. Traditionally, the VP may bark and strain at the leash, without it being policy.
With regard to Nuclear omerta, Obama spoke in Russia this today about Iran and proliferation, stripping Israel's continuing nuclear buildup out of the dialogue, as usual. Medvedev offered a nuanced contrast, referring to ME countries that haven't even applied for membership in the NPT conventions, which I took to be an oblique but obvious reference to Israeli proliferation, for anyone with ears to hear.
I've long wondered why Egypt (which was threatened with first strike in '73) or Russia, who's capitol was targeted in that era by the Israeli 'Moscow missiles', haven't made a public case that Israel is a nuclear proliferator. The US is also at least an indirect victim of nuclear blackmail by the Israelis.
What's the dynamic behind a broad diplomatic, academic and press acceptance of Israel's huge, expensive, semi-public nuclear and thermonuclear arms manufacturing program? How can the 'Helen Thomas question' just lie there, unanswered? Oh Abu Lynch, enlighten us.
Biden: US won't stop Israel attack on Iran
A flip flop on the Obama administration's foreign policies or a rogue Vice President?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5675
.
Biden Israel comments
I don't think the Israelis are going to make a go - no go decision based on a Sunday morning TV show.
Its interesting, Iran insisted the US take a hands off, no meddling position with regard to the uprising in Iran, citing national sovereignty. Perhaps this isn't a Biden blunder, but the administration's way of saying to the mullahs, you called the tune, now dance to it.
Biden's stupidity
What is the matter with that man? When people get into high office do they lose all their common sense and become carried away with their own importance?
This has been the most dangerous statement ever made especially when it is directed at the pit-bulls of this world, the Israelis. Until today, the action being taken by Obama was a noticable but subtle handbrake on irresponsponsible war-like action by the Israelis, always ready to attack someone, anyone, as it suits their current puiblic opinion and dictated by the Netanyahu government, after winning the election based on their right-wing policies.
This is a sacking matter. Get rid of the fool! Who does he think he is? This must be an inherited quality of the previous incumbent, the Presdidential manipulator, Cheney.
If the President has any sense at all, he should drag him back and carpet him severely. Then I would counter the damaging comments before Israel warms up its nuclear warheads and mounts an unthinkable campaign of bombing in Tehran. All it needed was such approval, the one thing stopping them in the past.
Make it very clear Mr. President, NOW
There is time...... but do it. Israelis do not need any more encouragement than Biden's comment to see this as glowing approval from the US, the totally subservient creator of, and the reason for the arrogance of this hated state.
Pull the pit-bulls back before it is too late.
biden does not expect you to pick him apart
my feeling biden does not always know what is he talking, especially in the fine tuned diplomatic language.
he does not know there's a difference between a country's absolute say over its internal affairs, and what a country is entitled to do to a foreign country.
else like many US politicians he does not think other countries, especially countries other than israel in the middle east are actually sovereign countries. attack a country's actual territory because you decide that you are "existentially threatened"? should not stephanopoulos have a duty to ask biden what exactly is his understanding of being "existentially threatened"?
Obama for sure has made a few bad personnel choices.
fortunately westpoint has got far more clear minded graduates. don't think they'll allow their men into more senseless sacarifices.
Obama: US not giving green light
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/07/obama-u-s-not-giving-israel-green-light-to-attack-iran/
From the article:
The United States is "absolutely not" giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.
"We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East," Obama said, referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions.
glad that's settled
(Haaretz is carrying the CNN quote/correction, but J-Post is not.)
Now perhaps CNN will get the President (or any admin spokesman) to answer the Helen thomas question: 'Do we know anyone in the ME who currently has nuclear weapons?'
Follow-up please, re US NPT obligations?
Blowing a lot of smoke over nothing
With any reasonable reading of Biden's statement, there is nothing new here and no "green light." This is just a bunch of people in the media and pundits trying to make up some news. Biden states that he/the administration does not believe a strike is the best path forward. But he states the obvious, that Israel is a sovereign nation that makes decisions for itself. This is news?
Then there is the sentence of links to suggest that Israel views this as a green light:
"but that's how it is being interpreted by Israelis across the spectrum"
If you actually read the links, 2 of the 3 say there is no policy change in these statements and no green light. Only one suggests otherwise. I'm curious what the Arabic news world links stated, since they were not in english. Were you smiling while you wrote that misleading link-filled statement? Thinking this will stir up a lot of excitement and get my blog a lot of hits?
In theory, people come to this website for a more thoughtful, knowledgeable analysis of world politics. This is intentional scaremongering to draw attention. What happened to "clarifies complex topics with crisp, insightful writing"
Nonetheless, Haaretz saw green
or at least captioned it that way, as did Reuters. Israel's ultracon Foreign Minister is trumpeting endorsement by Biden, pushing it another news cycle.
Debkafile is still offering green, not green and maybe interpretations.
VP Joe did perpetrate the 'Iran is an existential threat to Israel' myth, and his repetition/reinforcement of that meme strikes me as intentional transmission of misinformation to US voters.
With PM Bibi posing as reasonable and centrist in his Likud led cabinet, it's not unreasonable to worry about our VP repeating Nuclear Israel's overt threats of a new war, which looks to be launched over the heads of our Gulf fleet and Iraq occupation army.
With any reasonable reading
With any reasonable reading of Biden's statement, there is nothing new here and no "green light."
But we're talking about israel here. You can't expect them to give it a reasonable reading. Also we're looking at arab responses, and you can't particularly expect them to give it a reasonable reading either. And then there's the US public. When have they given anything a reasonable reading? The persians, now, they might get it straight.
And if there's nothing new here, did you know this was the policy? Olmert asked Bush whether it was OK to bomb iran and Bush said no. Now Biden says Netanyahu doesn't need to ask, and Netanyahu says he's been careful not to ask because he doesn't want to hear a no.
Is Biden saying we won't shoot down israeli planes over iraq or is he not saying that? It sures sounds like he's saying we won't shoot down israeli planes that are heading toward or back from bombing iran. Was there a known policy about that before?
Iraq used to be a sovereign nation and when they attacked kuwait we attacked iraq. We did tell them to make their own choice first....
Later we decided that iraq was a sovereign nation that must not be allowed to build nukes, so we invaded them. When Biden says that israel is a sovereign nation like any other sovereign nation that has the right to bomb iran whenever they think they need to, what does that mean to you?
It looks to me like the main thing that makes Biden's statement not mean a new US policy is that Tommy Vietor says US policy has not changed. Who are you going to believe, Joe Biden or Tommy Vietor? Obviously, Vietor. Also Obama says we don't want israel to bomb iran. Which is not the same as saying we would oppose israel bombing iran.
Hard to be sure that every reasonable reading of Biden's statement means that.
Adm. Mullen backpedals?
AP, quoting mixed-message Mullen at CSIS today, sounds like he is taking back part of his 'Face the Nation' no green light talk. I wonder if he got a call from Rahm.
"Mullen: Strike on Iran an option, but a bad one
snip>
Iran is perhaps one to three years away from getting the bomb, leaving a small and shrinking opening for diplomacy to avert what he said could be a dangerous nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Mullen said.
"I think the time window is closing."
snip>
Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" _ is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said.
Mullen was referring to Iran's response should it be attacked by either the United States or Israel, although he was careful to say that Israel can speak and choose for itself. His remarks made clear that the Obama administration wants to avoid a strike by either country."
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/07/07/ap/headlines/us_us_iran_israel.prt
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/20097633411395606.html
Meir Dagan, Israel's Mossad intelligence chief, said last month a world embargo had altered the course of Tehran's nuclear programme since 2003, but that Iran could have an atomic weapon by 2014 unless these steps were intensified.
Meir Dagan, Israel's Mossad
Meir Dagan, Israel's Mossad intelligence chief, said last month a world embargo had altered the course of Tehran's nuclear programme since 2003, but that Iran could have an atomic weapon by 2014 unless these steps were intensified.
We might make great progress if we intensify the embargo on iran and impose the exact same embargo on israel until they agree to give up their nukes and sign NNPT.
Meir Dagan, Israel's Mossad
Meir Dagan, Israel's Mossad intelligence chief, said last month a world embargo had altered the course of Tehran's nuclear programme since 2003, but that Iran could have an atomic weapon by 2014 unless these steps were intensified.
We might make great progress if we intensify the embargo on iran and impose the exact same embargo on israel until they agree to give up their nukes and sign NNPT.
Israeli proliferation
So JT, why do you think none of the countries facing 'nuclear opacity' threats have ever brought a case before the UN Gen Ass'y or IAEC to force the many signatories to the NPT to deal with Israel as a proliferator, enacting the tech, military sales and economic sanctions called for in the treaty? As a proliferator, Isreal is in the league of Pakistan, in that it has enabled other national proliferations, in apartheid S. Africa, and India's successful reach for the bomb.
Moscow has reportedly been targeted by Israel since the 70's (only about 1000 mi, due North), as a way of discouraging the flood of Soviet missiles, tanks and planes, or a repeat of the '73 near disaster, down on the occupied Canal.
I'm not clear what you're
I'm not clear what you're asking, WW.
Israel never signed NNPT so its rules don't apply. NNPT signers have no obligation to go after rogue states that don't sign, they only penalise signers that are believed to be cheating on the treaty.
Any signer can withdraw from the treaty after 3 months notice, given sufficient cause. It's vague what sufficient cause is, so when NK withdrew due to threts from USA various nations claimed this was not sufficient cause so NK should be forced to stay in.
Maybe the treaty should habe required signers to punish nonsigners for developing nukes, but they didn't. I know of only 3 nonsigners anyway -- pakistan, israel, and india.
So imposing the same sanctions on israel that we impose on iran would not go through NNPT but would need a different mechanism. If the USA went along it shouldn't be at all hard to find such a mechanism since USA is israel's only significant friend or ally.
The first question goes to Helen Thomas:
Q: 'Mr. President, do we know of any countries in the ME now in posession of nuclear weapons?'
A: 'I don't want to start a nuclear arms race by answering.'
What I asked you JT, is if you can elucidate why states like Egypt, or Iran, or Russia don't make a public diplomacy case that Israel is a proliferator? I mention those three in particular because of covert or overt nuclear threats from Israel, past or present. Israel is clearly engaged in it's half of the ME arms race, manufacturing plutonium, heavy water, increasing an advanced nuclear arsenal.
My inexpert understanding is that any country that is certified by our executive to be conducting proliferation activity is subject by act of Congress to restrictions against sale of military technology, not limited to nuclear strike bombers like F-15's.
Potential sanctions aren't solely driven by signing NNPT and then violating it, although consistently dirty inspections could trigger them. In fact, Iran is the only NNPT signatory threatened with sanctions. They claim that unjustly singles them out, when they are more or less compliant.
The invisible elephant in the room is that Israel is broadly known to be a proliferator, with a history of nuclear threats and conventional wars of choice. Why do states who are diplomatically hostile to Israel continue to pretend there is 'opacity'? Why not publically name the one known ME nuclear power?
Any sanctions would be external to Israel, by decisions of NNPT signatories like the US, Europe, China, Japan etc. The US has applied those in the past to India and Pakistan, neither of whom are NNPT signatories, as Israel is not. I grant that in Pakistan's case sanctions nearly evaporated after 2001, even though they were found by the IAEC to be international nuclear proliferation agents in 2002-3, delivering obsolete centrifuges to Iran that had previously been used in weapons production. And I see the US applied for, and India has been granted a 'peaceful use' import exception under Nuclear Suppliers Group international protocols. India has stated a 'no first use' weapons doctrine, unique among nuclear powers.
In Israel's case, their threat to use tactical nukes in 1973, and the 'Samson Option' threat for an MAD strategic strike with a 'Moscow Missile' took our Med Fleet to Defcon 2, and put us at Defcon 3 globally, threatening US survival. Israel's 2008 threat to blast Iranian U-hexaflouride accross Persia threatens to draw US ships and troops into a wider conflict, in a manner not of our choosing.
As a matter of US strategic security, we need to state our understanding of Israel's nuclear doctrine, and our policy towards that threat to our interests. American voters have a right to review our national policy, and choose representatives and executives after informed debate.