The War in Yemen and Iran's Nukes

There is a direct connection between the escalating war in Yemen and the Iranian nuclear issue.

Israel has been monitoring Yemen's Houthi uprising for over a year now, and with good reason. Like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen are an Iranian proxy military force, shouting exactly the same slogans we heard in Teheran just last week: "Death to America! Death to Israel! Curse the Jews! Victory to Islam!"  

The Houthi Zaidiyyahs, or "Fivers", belong to a Shia sect with slightly different beliefs than those held by the Shiites in Iran, AKA "Twelvers". Despite this they act in full allegiance to Tehran, which provides them with advanced weapons, equipment, training, leadership, reinforcements and money. Now that the Houthis have taken the strategic port town of Aden, at the entrance to the Red Sea, the concerns of Israel, Egypt and the Saudis, are clear:

1. The Iranian takeover of the narrow Bab el Mandeb Straits puts every ship sailing to or from Israel's strategic port of Elat and Egypt's Suez Canal (which handles over 2/3 of Europe's oil imports and about 10% the world's commercial shipping) in direct threat of attacks by Iranian forces or their proxies.
2. The Iranian-Houthi takeover of Yemen has added to the rising influence of Iran in the region, enabling the jihadist Islamic Republic to vastly improve its position during the latest negotiations over its nuclear program. One immediate result is that decision makers in Israel, France and the Arab countries have come to an understanding over the past few months that the Americans have no intention of imposing demands on Iran with regards to halting military operations or terrorist attacks in other countries, as part of the deal over Tehran's nuclear program.

But Israel's concerns regarding the Houthi takeover of Yemen is nothing compared to the profound ire of Riyadh and other Sunni Arab countries, in light of Iran's rampage throughout the Middle East and the blatant inaction on the part of the US.

The anger of the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Emiratis and other Sunni Gulf states is not directed at Iran, which is engaged in the kind of regional hostile activity expected of it, but mainly at the US, which appears to be either ignorant of, ambivalent to, or actually taking sides in the centuries old Sunni-Shiite conflict. They can't understand the fact that while the White House was intensively negotiating with Iran in an attempt to reach an agreement on that rogue nation's nuclear program by the end of March, the Shiites in Tehran toppled a majority Sunni regime and made significant territorial advances. Yemen is a state with a long and unmanned border with Saudi Arabia, Iran's number one regional rival. Yet Washington remained silent.

This just adds to the concerns of Arab and Israeli leaders who are still struggling with the White House's insistence on demonstrating exceptional weakness in its ongoing talks with Tehran. The expectation by Sunni Arabs and Israelis was that the world's major powers will at least try to pressure Tehran to halt its military operations in a variety of destinations in the Middle East, as part of any deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Such pressure against Tehran over its involvement in Yemen or Iraq, such as leaving economic sanctions in place, could inspire the ayatollahs to reconsider their advances in the region. But for now, under the White House "zero action" policy, Iran continues doing whatever it wants without having to miss a beat.

A Houthi/Iranian victory in Yemen, combined with a weak P5+1nuke deal, will have major negative ramifications throughout the Middle East:

• It will give Iran its long desired domination over a huge swath of the region.
• It will enable Iran to expand its planning and support of worldwide terrorism.
• It will start an immediate nuclear arms race in the region amongst unstable regimes.
• It will threaten shipping through the Suez Canal.
• It will threaten American assets and interests worldwide.
• It will continue to directly threaten Israel's long-term security, as well as the security of every American allied Sunni country in the region and beyond.

Is it too late to do anything? Of course not!

By the end of this week we may know if the Iranian nuke deal is absolutely great (not just "good"), meaning it ends any chance of Iran having nuclear weapons of any form, at any time in this or the next century, and includes cessation of all Iranian military and terrorist actions.

But...if the deal is less than "Great" or if the negotiations are once again "extended", then this is the time for America to wake-up, behave like the exceptional Super Power and world leader we are, and simply fulfill the promises, treaties, guarantees and commitments we gave to Israel and the Sunni states in the Middle East.

This is the time for the USA to:

1. Understand that the current Iranian regime is dead-set on having nuclear weapons, destroying Israel and expanding its hegemony throughout the Middle East and Europe.
2. Internalize that this not a regime that negotiates "in good faith", nor does it negotiate according to Western culture or norms.
3. Accept the fact that no-one in the P5+1 negotiating team has a clue about Middle East, and specifically Persian negotiating customs or tactics.
4. Realize that the only diplomacy they respect is good old American "Gunboat Diplomacy". Therefore in my opinion, the US could:
   1. Launch a warning "shot across the bow" at one of the nuclear facilities. Maybe a conventionally armed, low yield cruise missile, to make a crystal-clear point.
   2. Promise that if Iran does not sign a "great" nuke deal within 72 hours (time for foreigners to evacuate to predesignated safe areas), then it will feel the full wrath of an angry America and our fed up regional allies.
   3. If they sign - great. But if they don't sign, then...
   4. Keep the damn promise!!! (It worked with Japan, right?)

Either way the main upsides are:

• Renewed Respect for America in the Middle East and the world,
• Israel and Sunni Arab countries will feel safer,
• No nuclear arms race, at least for a while.
• Iran pulls out of Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

And that's the connection between the war in Yemen and Iran's Nukes.

Why Likud Won

Last week I explained here how the Israeli electoral system works. A high percentage of Israeli citizens participated in the fully democratic process, the votes were counted, there were very few appeals to the Central Election Committee and the final tally was officially announced and recorded.

Ever since the announcement last week, many prominent commentators, both in Israel and here, have been trying to explain the decisive victory of the Likud Party headed by Bibi Netanyahu over the Zionist Camp party headed by Yitzhak Hertzog and Tzippi Livni.

Numerous respectable polls during the weeks leading up to the elections persistently showed parity between the right-wing Likud and the left-wing Zionist Camp party, even after Bibi’s powerful, if controversial, speech before Congress.

Though nuances may differ, depending on one’s own political perspective, the Israeli’s understand, have internalized, and are moving on (some joyfully, others apprehensively) in what is actually a pretty familiar political situation.

But many American commentators, politicians and so-called “experts” either don’t understand or just don’t want to take the time to understand, the subtle shades and tones of the motivating dynamics of the Israeli voter.

So for them and for those of you who are maybe a bit confused, here is my “simplified guide to the perplexed” of Israeli politics:

A. The issues concerning Israeli voters (in order of importance):

a. Security! In its 67 years of existence, tiny Israel has fought 10 full blown wars conducted numerous overt and covert operations against terrorist organizations dedicated to its destruction and suffered hundreds of fatal terrorist attacks and rocket and mortar fire against civilians in their homes, riding buses or driving on the roads. Security and national survival are the most important issues considered by Israelis in any election. In this election this was even more important because of the current inevitability of Iran having nuclear weapons in the very near future combined with its brutal taking over of Arab countries in the region, the deterioration of hitherto stable regimes in the Middle East, the growth and expansion of ISIS on Israel’s doorstep, the strengthening of Al-Qaeda…and the pervading, growing perception (whether true or not…) that America is, at best, slowly abandoning its traditional friends in the Middle East (including Israel) or at worst, is planning an alliance with Iran.  

B. “Right” and “Left”

a. Unlike here, in Israel the concepts of “right” and “left” refer primarily to a party’s platform on the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab World issues and only secondarily on economics, housing and education, where both Likud and the Zionist Camp are pretty close.  The easiest way to explain is:

                 i. Right = Hawkish (Peace with all neighbors through negotiations, stronger deterrence, preemptive operations, regional security and defense coalitions, preferential allocations to improving the IDF and Intelligence networks, etc.) 

                  ii. Left = Dovish (Peace with all neighbors by negotiations stronger deterrence, preemptive operations, regional security and defense coalitions, preferential allocations to economic needs)

b. Since both parties have security and economic planks in their platforms, they are normally defined in Israel as:  Likud: “Center Right”, and Zionist Camp: “Center Left”

Peace Process – Two State Solution.

Both Likud and the Zionist Camp are on the record in full support of an ultimate “Two State” resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Based on statements by leaders of both parties, there is little or no daylight between them on the following elements of a final agreement:

1. It has to be negotiated with a credible leader who has the support of a majority of the Palestinians and most of the Arab heads of State (for the “Arab Plan” to kick-in). Abu Mazen has neither.

2. The Palestinian State must be demilitarized.

3. Israel maintains control of all air-space and air-waves.

4. The Eastern ridge of Samaria and the Jordan Valley remain under IDF Control.

5. Gaza and the West bank are one package (no “3 state” solution”)

6. No foreign troops anywhere.

7. That current Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) does not have the authority to deliver on an agreement, even if he had the will to sign one.

So Netanyahu’s answer to an Israeli reporter’s question published the day before the election was accurate, according to both parties. Since Abu Mazen cannot deliver on an agreement, and Hamas will quickly take over any area evacuated by Israel (just like in Gaza in 2005), then this is not the time to make a deal.

Here is the full exchange:

Bibi: “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel.  Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand. The left does this time and time again,” Netanyahu said. “We (the Likud g.e.) are realistic and understand.”

Netanyahu was then asked specifically whether he meant that a Palestinian state would not be established if he were reelected prime minister. He answered, “Correct”. OK – here he could have qualified his answer a bit better.

But was this why Likud won the elections? Not according to the analysts. In fact a poll taken by Likud over the weekend, but was not allowed to be published two days before the election showed that Likud would win with a comfortable margin of between 5-7 seats.

Here’s my analysis of why, in the end and with a large voter turnout, Likud won:

1. Security is issue #1, and despite the fact that Hertzog’s security “credentials” are better than Bibi’s, his campaign failed to emphasize it.

2. Joining up with Tzippi Livni, who is not popular amongst most Israelis, probably cost Hertzog the election. The last minute cancelling of their rotation agreement did not help.

3. Israeli society today is split between those who have more and those who have less. This was this was cleverly projected in Likud campaign ads in this election as “Tel Aviv” (Hertzog) vs. “The rest of the Country” (Likud).

4. Bibi’s campaign emphasized the threats facing Israel from Iran, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and did I mention Iran?

5. Hertzog’s campaign emphasized social and economic issues, as well as security

6. But perhaps the most important issue that moved many still hesitating to vote for Likud, even if they don’t really like Bibi (does anyone?), was the prominent publicity given in Israel’s media outlets to the brazen and heavy handed way that the White House gave thousands of dollars to a get-out-the vote left wing organization called V15, and sent Obama’s top campaign advisors to Israel help Hertzog’s National Camp party overthrow Bibi and the Likud leadership.

In exit interviews voters said that the US administration’s attempt to influence the elections, with US taxpayers money, was the ultimate definition of “hutzpah”- and the main reason they voted Likud.

Israelis are proud, independent and don’t like others, especially those who are clueless, telling them what to do.

I hope that the lesson has been learned: Chicago rules don’t apply to Israel.

The Storm Before the Quiet

     I'm writing this this column on Monday, March 2nd.By the time you read it (barring a last minute change) Bibi Netanyahu will have given hisMarch 3rd presentation to Congress on the dangers of a bad nuclear deal with Iran. Many of you probably saw it live on C-Span or the Internet or in rebroadcasts with “talking head” experts parsing his every word, together with commentary from administration officials.
   I may deal with specifics of the speech in a future column or briefing, but today I want to focus on the “storm before the quiet” – the crescendo of articles and comments by politicians, journalists, analysts, self-defined experts, ex-military and ex-intelligence officials from both countries, and pundits of all stripes who for the past month, have weighed-in assertively that either: 

1. Bibi should give the speech. 
2. Bibi should cancel the speech. 

The arguments on both sides are compelling. 

   Those who favor the speech claim that the upcoming “deal” between the US and Iran will enable the fanatic Shiite republic to have nuclear weapons within less than a year, enabling it to literally incinerate Israel, and most of its densely packed population, with just one or two bombs. They hope that once the US legislators and public know the details, they may be able to prevent it.

   Adding to the urgency are recent statements by the chairman of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, who confirmed that Iran has not been cooperating with his inspectors, despite having promised to do so, and that therefore he cannot say what Iran already has and what it is planning. Remember – the “deal” that Secretary of State John Kerry is proposing relies heavily on Iran agreeing to unrestricted, frequent, intrusive and robust inspections by the IAEA.

   Those calling to cancel the speech claim that the negatives relating to US-Israel relations, already (according to some of them) at the “lowest point in history”, will just get worse and Israel may lose the only super-power that supports it. They also claim that Bibi is doing this as an election stunt.

   To both sides I say: step back, take a deep breath, and focus on the facts: 

1. Deal or no deal, Iran will not have nuclear weapons anytime in the foreseeable future. Remember, the US is not the only country that drew a “red line”. The Israeli “red line” is indelible, regardless of who is the prime minister after the March 17 elections.
2. Historically, this is not anywhere near being the “lowest point” in US-Israel relations. Sure – Bibi and Obama don’t like each other personally, to say the least, but judging from the turnout at AIPAC this week, large majorities in both houses of Congress support Israel and are committed to Israel’s safety, security and economic success.
3. But this is only since 1967….

     During the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, the Deptments. of War and State recognized the possibility of a Soviet-Arab connection and the potential Arab restriction on oil supplies. They advised against U.S. support of the Jewish State. 
   In 1948, as the end of the mandate approached, the decision to recognize the Jewish state remained contentious. There was significant disagreement between President Truman, his domestic and campaign adviser, Clark Clifford, and both the State and Defense Departments.

   Secretary of State George Marshall feared U.S. backing of a Jewish state would harm relations with the Muslim world, limit access to Middle Eastern oil, and destabilize the region.  Clifford argued in favor of recognizing the new Jewish state. Marshall opposed Clifford's arguments, contending they were based on domestic political considerations in the election year.

   Marshall said that if Truman followed Clifford's advice and recognized the Jewish state, then he would vote against Truman in the election.

   Two days later, on May 14, 1948, the United States, under Truman, became the first country to extend any form of recognition.

   But at that time U.S. policy in the Middle East was geared toward:

• Supporting Arab states independence
• Developing oil-producing countries
• Preventing Soviet influence from gaining a foothold in Greece, Turkey and Iran, as well as preventing an arms race and…
• Maintaining a neutral stance in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

   During these years of austerity, the U.S. provided Israel no military aid, and very moderate amounts of economic aid, mostly as loans for basic food stuffs.

   France became Israel's main arms supplier. This support was seen by Israel as needed to counter the perceived threat from Egypt under President Nasser.

   During the 1956 Suez Crisis, France, Israel and Britain colluded to topple Nasser by regaining control of the Suez Canal, and to occupy parts of western Sinai. In response, Eisenhower, with support from Soviet Union at the UN, intervened on behalf of Egypt.

   When Nasser expressed a desire to establish closer relations with America the US, eager to increase its influence in the region, and prevent Nasser from going over to the Soviet Bloc, made a point to distant itself from Israel. The only assistance the U.S. provided Israel was food aid.

   Only in the early 1960s, did the US begin to sell advanced, defensive, weapons to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, including Hawk anti-aircraft missiles.

   Prior to 1967, U.S. administrations had taken considerable care to avoid giving the appearance of favoritism.

   During L.B.J's presidency America's policy took a sharp turn in the pro-Israeli direction. Before the 1967 war the Administration was the first to be sympathetic to Israel's need to defend itself. After the Six Day War, the US became, and is still to this day, Israel’s strongest ally, partner and supporter...despite “disagreements within the family” as Bibi noted in his AIPAC speech on Monday.

   As you can see US-Israel relations today are not “at their lowest”, on the contrary…The “worst” or “lowest” relations were during the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations (though JFK started a slight change).

   The warm relations between the US and Israel, at least since 1967, have survived numerous arguments, crises and “disagreements withinthe family”. This is not the first, nor will it be the last.

   Unfortunately, neither will it be the end of the storm-before-the-quiet chorus of prophets of doom.