March 27, 2008
Cheney talks Iran in Israel; U.S. strike seen as remote
The answer from most Israeli intelligence analysts: not likely.
They say the chances of a U.S. military strike against Iran or its nuclear installations -- whether out of Bush's view of a strategic imperative or conviction that no one else will do the job -- are remote.
Along with talks on Iran, during Cheney's visit to Israel from Saturday to Monday he focused on two other key issues: the possibility of Israel-Syria peace talks and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
On these, too, time seems to be running out for the Bush administration.
But it was the Iranian dilemma that topped the agenda in two meetings Cheney held with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and one with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
Barak, arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten regional and international stability, said no option should be taken off the table, including the use of force.
Israel and the United States now believe they have identified an Iranian "smoking gun." For the Americans, the "smoking gun" no longer is the capacity to arm long-range missiles with nuclear warheads but simply the enrichment of uranium, which serves no purpose other than the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Indeed, if the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published last December suggested a chasm between Israeli and American assessments, Israeli officials say the views of both sides now are almost identical.
They agree that Iran is trying to speed up its uranium enrichment program. Israel estimates that Iran will be able to build a bomb by late next year or early 2010.
Israel also figures that the chances of the Bush administration ordering a pre-emptive military strike against Iran are virtually zero. The only such scenario the Israelis envision is if the Democratic presidential candidates appear to be far ahead of their Republican rival and Bush senses a "now or never" strike option.
Even in these circumstances, the Israelis say, an American strike is highly unlikely.
Still, the Israelis are hoping that the hard-line Cheney will push the envelope -- a role he reportedly played vis-Ã -vis the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The debate over what to do about Iran will continue next month in Washington when top American and Israeli officials meet for another scheduled round of "strategic dialogue."
On the Syrian issue, significant nuanced differences have emerged.
While the Bush administration does not trust Syrian President Bashar Assad, Israel believes it might be able to work with him. Israel and the United States recognize the possibility of a huge strategic gain by prying Syria away from the Iranian axis.
In his talks with Israeli leaders, however, Cheney made clear that he did not think this was possible. Indeed, the vice president said the United States had evidence that Syria and Iran were doing all they could through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to undermine Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
While a few weeks ago Israel received new signals from Assad that he was willing to talk, the Syrian position cooled quickly, as it has frequently in the past.
Israeli analysts now expect little movement on the Syrian track at least until after the Bush administration leaves office next January. Assad, they say, would be prepared to make peace with Israel and break with Iran only if the United States underwrites the deal with strong economic and diplomatic support.
The current thinking has it that Assad is biding his time in the belief that he'll get a better deal from the next American president -- whomever is elected.
With 10 months to go in its tenure, the Bush administration is investing considerable energy on the Palestinian front. The Annapolis conference last November was followed by a flurry of high-level visits to the region -- Bush himself in January, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice in early March and now Cheney.
The impression, though, is that the visits have been all process and little substance. A peace deal by the end of the year -- the stated goal of the Americans, Israelis and the Palestinian Authority -- seems highly unrealistic.
Israelis and Palestinians have not been able to make significant progress on their own, and the United States has not been prepared to force either side to make concessions.
Indeed, after his talks with the Israelis, Cheney made it clear that this administration will not lean on Israel. Cheney also warned the Palestinians that ongoing terror could cost them their chance for statehood.
The lack of progress in the peace talks has led to widespread disillusionment on the West Bank.
A recent survey by leading Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki showed a sharp increase in support for terrorist violence and a pervasive skepticism about the chances for peace with Israel based on the principle of two states for two peoples.
According to the poll, 84 percent of Palestinians supported the terrorist shooting spree earlier this month in which eight students were killed at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem. That is a sign of just how radicalized Palestinian society has become. In the mid-1990s, polls showed Palestinian support for suicide bombings at less than 20 percent.
Although most Palestinians still say they want a two-state solution, few believe it will happen soon. Shikaki attributes the dismal poll numbers to dashed Palestinian hopes raised by Annapolis.
Cheney met with Palestinian leaders in Ramallah, who asked him to pressure Israel to halt settlement expansion.
Some Israeli experts are predicting a new intifada.
"The ground is on fire and Israel is blind to what is happening," said Bar-Ilan University's Menachem Klein, an expert on Palestinian affairs.
What the current American administration is able to do in its last few months in office could be critical.
American success in pushing the peace process forward could mean a measure of stability. Failure could mean another horrific round of escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict.