by Cheryl Rofer
The Jane Harman mess, which erupted on Monday, continued through the week. As bloggers (mainly; the MSM seemed to want to ignore the story) got down to the nitty-gritty of whom Harman was talking to and why the conversation was tapped, they tended to lose track of the bigger issue—that of US relations with Israel and Iran. So that’s where I’ll stay. My post on Monday tended to assume that the CQ report was accurate. I should have been more careful in noting that. I will stick with my hypothesis about the leaking,, which is as good as, and better than, all the others I’ve seen.
On Monday, I asked if a Times of London article might represent a deliberate Israeli leak. The Times of London loves controversy and, shall we say, high-risk articles. So it’s not the most reliable source. But if you wanted to wave a big stick while simultaneously weakening the message so that nobody starts throwing bombs around, planting a story with a not-entirely-reliable source might be a way to do it.
In any case, a day or two later, Binyamin Netanyahu issued a less provocative statement that the Iran problem would have to be addressed before the Palestine problem could be addressed. This was clearly in response to Barack Obama’s statement of a week or two earlier that there would have to be progress on the Palestine problem before the US could move on the Iran problem.
But there haven’t been any public statements from the US since then. Nothing would be gained by ratcheting up the temperature of the rhetoric. But there is continuing conversation behind the scenes, mostly at lower levels. There was some posturing in both of those statements; remember that the whole world hears public statements, so both Netanyahu and Obama had to calculate that their audiences included the folks at home, like Congress and the Knesset, the voters, Iran, and the other states around Israel, like Syria, with whom negotiations have started through Turkey. Then there is an audience of more distant observers that have a stake in all this, like Europe, Russia and even China.
North Korea Gets Subtle? Thie might not qualify as subtle for anyone else, but it’s possible that North Korea is learning from Iran. Their taking of two US journalists as hostages may be a move to give themselves additional maneuvering room in negotiations beyond “We’ll make another bomb.” This gives them the option of offering to give up the hostages as well.
Henry Kissinger is looking for an overarching diplomatic strategy in Obama’s recent moves. He thinks it’s too early to see one. It’s important to have such a strategy; otherwise you may trap yourself with tactical moves, as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did. E. J. Dionne earlier in the week was looking for “The Obama Doctrine.” That phrase could apply to what Kissinger is looking for, but in Dionne’s hands it becomes more of a journalistic trope, one of those labels a columnist can apply without going through the onerous process of thought. Dionne thinks that Obama may, just may, be breaking with Bush’s style.
Who’s Getting It and Who’s Not. Dionne also verges over into the “Obama needs some fight” trope that has been infecting a lot of commentary this week. Dan Froomkin nicely puts paid to that business, in somewhat the way I’ve done. George Bush is not a role model. We don’t need a bully in the bully pulpit. If you’re strong, you don’t need to say so. In fact, if you keep saying so, people may think that you’re not really strong. The Boston Globe editorial board gets it:
If anything, President Obama's approach has hurt Venezuela's ability to blame Washington for the results of Chavez's policies. Obama conceded nothing as a matter of policy, but gained goodwill by coming off as civil, reasonable, and willing to hear others out.Eugene Robinson, who usually knows better, wants Obama to “slap back.” Ugh.