[For its part, the U.S. shows a funny way of making an “increased demand” for results. To the unaided eye, it looks like more of the same old, same old -- with the U.S. trying to bribe Israel to be compliant. The following is today’s Stratfor briefing.]
Push for Peace Process May Tie U.S. Hands in Middle East
Summary
On Feb. 14, the Jerusalem daily Haaretz reported that Israel and the United States are developing a joint defense pact. Under the pact, Washington would actively guarantee Israeli security. The pact is part of an effort to secure a formalized peace between Israel and Syria. But to secure a peace agreement, the United States may commit itself to a long-term policy that would undermine its relations with Arab countries. This would ultimately limit the ability of the United States to develop and maintain relations with Arab nations.
Analysis
The United States and Israel are discussing a joint defense pact, according to a Feb. 14 report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The pact would reportedly obligate the United States to defend Israel in the event of attack. Meant to facilitate the stalled, formal peace talks between Israel and Syria, the pact, however, could leave the United States in an unfavorable position in the region. It will effectively bind the foreign policies of the two nations, strain Washington's relations with Arab countries and dramatically limit Washington's future policy options.
The completion of the Israeli-Syrian peace process has become a major objective of the Clinton administration. U.S. President Bill Clinton himself has taken an active role in leading the negotiations, inviting the leadership of both former antagonists to the United States, mediating the talks and offering incentives to Israel for a formalized peace agreement.
Apparently to move the stalled talks along, U.S. ambassador Martin Indyk has reportedly proposed that the United States commit to defend Israel, particularly in case of an attack involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and long-range ballistic missiles. So far, both the Pentagon and the State Department have refused to comment on the existence of the negotiations. The agreement would also reportedly place U.S. logistical bases on Israeli soil to expedite U.S. military operations in the event of attack. The United States, however, does not need pre-positioned supplies to launch a retaliatory strike in the event of an attack.
Instead, the defense pact seems more like an increasingly large package of American incentives meant to get Israel to keep the talks alive. Unfortunately, the incentive may be more than the United States can afford. The pact would substantially increase the U.S. commitment to Israel's continued security, which now stands at $3 billion annually - more aid than any other country. Other reported initiatives include placing U.S. peacekeeping forces in the Golan Heights and Israel's recent request for $17 billion in military aid, including cruise missile technology. However, Washington has been careful to avoid firm security commitments in order to keep from antagonizing Arab nations.
The United States already provides Israel with aid, weapons and technology but a newly formalized defense pact would tie U.S. foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy. If conflicts between Israel and Arab nations arise, the United States would be forced to side with Israel - regardless of U.S. interests or relations with the Arab nations involved. The relationship would not work; Israel's foreign policy is often in direct conflict with the United States. Israel is known to have sold weapons and technology to U.S. adversaries such as China and Iran.
In the Arab world, Washington's working - if tenuous - relations would be further endangered. Already, Persian Gulf nations have called for the United States to lower its military profile in the region. And Iran and Iraq have long clamored for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. By building a formalized, bilateral defense agreement with Israel, Washington ensures hostility from Arab nations.
Forged during the heat of the Cold War, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has since cooled. No longer of vital importance to U.S. strategic interests in the region, the peace process has become a hot-button issue in Washington largely due to the fact that it's an election year with an outgoing president who wants to leave behind a legacy. In the hope of formalizing an already tenuous peace, Washington may undercut its long-term interests in the region, and ultimately re-formulate its entire policy in the Middle East.
[end]
Carl
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com