THE VISITOR

 As you probably know our visitor arrived and was welcomed with all due pomp and circumstance.

However, what appeared to be a departure from President Biden’s Middle East itinerary, was probably agreed on in advance. I refer to the stopover in the defence exhibit hanger at Ben Gurion Airport. 

Observers noticed that Prime Minister Yair Lapid voluntarily stepped aside for the benefit of Defence Minister Benny Gantz. Obviously, Gantz is better qualified to describe both the Iron Dome air-defence system and the advanced version of the Iron Beam air-defence system, however, the move could have been politically motivated. Maybe it was a gesture intended to conciliate the defence minister, in the light of new political alliances. I prefer to leave it at that, without elaborating further.

I think many Israelis liked the televised ceremony at the airport even if they were inconvenienced by cordoned-off routes to facilitate the president’s motorcade.

Just prior to the president’s ME visit CNN noted that Israeli officials have made no secret of their eagerness to further normalisation with Saudi Arabia and hope that Biden will be able to help them.

Notwithstanding that, Middle East analyst, author, and negotiator Aaron David Miller regards Saudi Arabia as a pariah state (Biden once said something similar).

Likewise, Steven Simon, former United States National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, doesn’t like the new initiative.

The two co-authored an op-ed for the Washington Post titled “What to expect from Biden’s big Middle East trip.” Miller and Simon wrote that current levels of U.S. security assistance to both the UAE and Saudi Arabia are already in direct contradiction with a number of U.S. laws.

They emphasised that the U.S. government is prohibited from providing security assistance or guarantees to actors engaged in gross human rights abuses.  

They said the Foreign Assistance Act states that no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights and emphasizes the United States’ duty to promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

When Biden travels to Jeddah on Friday, he will attend a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council plus three -- Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. He will also hold a bilateral meeting with Saudi King Salman and his advisers, including MBS. Some US officials told CNN they are hoping that MBS and Biden have some one-on-one time as part of the meeting, though the choreography will likely be driven by the Saudi hosts.

Biden is likely to bring up Khashoggi's murder, US officials told CNN, and the administration is hoping MBS will acknowledge some responsibility for the crime. While oil production is not expected to be the main topic of the meeting, US officials do expect the topic to arise -- there is hope that the Kingdom will commit to increasing production in the weeks following the meeting.

The Yemen conflict will be a central piece of the conversation as well. US officials are hoping that the Saudis agree to extend the truce between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels, backed by Iran.

Now regarding any qualms of conscience Israel might have about dealing with countries that don’t uphold human rights, I think confronting the Iranian nuclear threat takes precedence over any misgivings we might have.

US President Joe Biden told Israel’s Channel 12 News that he would use force against Iran as a “last resort” to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, but stressed his preference to negotiate with the Iranians instead.

The network’s anchor Yonit Levi interviewed Biden hours before he left Washington for his first visit to Israel as US president. The interview was broadcast Wednesday evening after Biden had arrived at Ben Gurion Airport.

Asked if the US would use force to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, Biden replied “as a last resort, yes.” “Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Levi asked the president if he received any commitments from Prime Minister Yair Lapid or his predecessor Naftali Bennett that Israel would not act alone militarily against Iran’s nuclear sites, as it has threatened, without first notifying the US.

“I’m not going to discuss that,” Biden replied. He also declined to comment about possible Israeli involvement in any potential military action by the US to prevent Iran going nuclear.

What does using force against Iran ‘as a last resort’ mean for the US? Asked Jeremy Bob in the Jerusalem Post. The Times of Israel, Reuters and other news outlets also provided nuanced interpretations of that brief ‘last recourse’ condition.

Israeli intelligence has often taken action based on a partial picture of what was going on in the Islamic Republic.

Jeremy Bob thought former Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, possibly current IDF Chief-of-Staff Aviv Kohavi and current Mossad Director David Barnea, might be in favour of striking even before the "last resort" moment.

No one wants to define this point exactly, but it would likely be once Israeli intelligence had shown that Iran had made the political decision to go for a nuclear bomb and was three months or so away from accomplishing some of the final tasks required to complete the job.

“Then there are former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Benjamin Netanyahu.

They might also go for an attack three months before, but they would almost certainly attack if intelligence reported that Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb or positioning forces for potential use – meaning close enough that waiting could risk missing the moment to stop it.

What Biden's statement probably means is that if US intelligence was convinced that a nuclear weapon had been developed and was on the way to being potentially deployed (within days or hours), it would then seriously consider attacking that deployment.

These differences in Israeli and US readiness to attack are not just distinct in time but in substance.

Israeli intelligence has often taken action based on a partial picture of what was going on in the Islamic Republic, despite uncertainties that might have meant it was acting prematurely.

It’s also a matter o relative distance from Iran. Understandably, Israel takes Iran’s threats seriously.

If and when Israel decides to attack Iran it will probably do so preemptively on a large scale aiming to discourage the Islamic State from seeking nuclear weapons.

“In the highly unlikely event that the US uses force, it might be much more narrowly tailored against deploying a specific weapon, or one nuclear site where that weapon was waiting to be deployed.” Jeremy Bob reasoned.

“Moreover,” He added, “US intelligence often will reject Israeli intelligence as too uncertain or with too many holes to be relied on for taking action.

Even former US President George W. Bush, known for being much more ready to use force than Biden, was unwilling to order a US strike on Syria's secret nuclear reactor in 2007, whereas Israel was ready to do so, and did.

Former US President Ronald Reagan, also not known as squeamish about using force, blew his top at Israel when it took out Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.

Biden has occasionally used force to take out global terrorists, especially ISIS, but has not ordered a single major operation that might risk big geopolitical consequences or a broader conflict.”

Considering President Biden’s reservations in his, “As a last resort,” condition, I’m inclined to side with that time-tested adage -“If a job is worth doing do it yourself.”

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,                                                               14^th of July, 2022