Friday, January 26, 2007

Everything but the war

David Denehy is not a household name in the United States, much less in Israel, but his influence on American policy in Iran is tangible. Denehy worked at the U.S. State Department with Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president's daughter. He was involved in a project to establish a Persian-language television station in the U.S. and is a respected member of a small group of Iran wonks. He pulls the strings as the coordinator of U.S. policy in Iran, albeit not as the director who bears responsibility.

Cheney left the State Department in the summer to have her fifth child; Denehy stayed. His desk is piled high with memos and assignments almost entirely related to Iran. There is a rumor that he will soon be working with another Cheney: Vice President Richard Cheney. Whether at State or elsewhere, Denehy will continue working on the same topic, dealing daily with the activities of the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG). This is the group that will chart the path, at least in the stages in which war is not involved.

The situation in Iran and Syria is not yet war, although, as an administration official said this week, it is everything but war. ISOG includes officials who deal with finance, publicity, operations, terror prevention and the promotion of democracy. All are searching for ways to make life difficult for Tehran - to stop it. During her Middle East visit, regional leaders bent the ear of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with their concerns about Iran's growing power. Some sounded even more frightened and worried than their Israeli counterparts, if not for precisely the same reasons.

Bush mentioned Iran five times in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, but only once in the nuclear context. That was no coincidence: The U.S. has decided to focus on overall Iranian activity, not just on the danger of a nuclear bomb. That is even more worrying to the "moderate" Arab states. The Saudis fear an Iranian-sponsored uprising by their own Shi'ite minority, not an Iranian nuclear missile strike on Riyadh. The states in the region see the Iranians as using nuclear power as a cover, to ward off a military threat and allow them to advance "the revolution" through more conventional methods. The fear of physical annihilation, of the actual use of a nuclear bomb, is reserved for Israel alone.

Dealing with Iran has breathed new life into the strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon initiated the dialogue six years ago. Since then there have been long breaks and no clear direction. The forum met this week in Israel, for the first time, at the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies. Shaul Mofaz headed the Israeli delegation. The current transportation minister and former defense minister felt at home: Finally he could talk about strategic threats and the dangers to regional stability, rather than the new driving safety campaign. Officials from the Foreign Ministry, the Prime Minister's Bureau and the National Security Council also attended. Washington was represented by Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Burns told the forum that President George Bush's decision to dispatch a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf and American efforts to impose economic sanctions on Iran send a clear signal to Tehran that the U.S. is serious. In addition, the appointment of a navy man, rather than an army officer, to head the Central Command (CENTCOM) is correctly seen as preparation for a potential naval confrontation in the Gulf. No naval officer has ever headed CENTCOM, which was established less than 25 years ago. Admiral William Fallon, who was dragged into this thankless assignment after two years as head of the Pacific Command, will be the first.

Mofaz and Burns agreed that the U.S.-Israel dialogue will take place four or five times a year. They confirmed that their two countries will coordinate positions ahead of any move against Iran and exchange intelligence about the Islamic republic. Mofaz told his guests not to give up on stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions and not to accept Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Americans asked for Israeli intelligence on the issue and said they are in the process of recruiting Iran experts.

After the wide-ranging dialogue ended, Burns and England met with Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who is coordinating diplomatic efforts against an Iranian bomb. The Mossad believes there are many "soft" options that can be used against Iran, such as sanctions and an economic stranglehold, and will give these approaches two years before beginning need to consider alternatives. That is precisely Denehy's job.

Prime Minister's Bureau. Connections

Former prime ministerial adviser Dov Weissglas and former Israeli ambassador to Washington Danny Ayalon - Sharon's emissaries to Washington - have no intention of making a hasty exit.

"Politics is not a bad profession," Ronald Reagan once said. "If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book." Weissglas and Ayalon, who have apparently succeeded, have chosen a more profitable exit strategy. They are forming a consulting office together with George Birnbaum, a former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu and the point man in Israel for American political consultant Arthur Finkelstein.

Without Weissglas and Ayalon, communication between Washington and Jerusalem is more complicated. One of Rice's goals in her visit here last week was to understand the goals of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The close relationship between Rice and Weissglas ended with the elections last March. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni now handles communication with Rice. The Prime Minister's Bureau works with the White House, primarily with Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams. But the intimate connection was weakened, and the rivalries among Israeli leaders affect the relationship with the U.S., the responsibility for which is now split between rivals Olmert and Livni.

Livni gained the most from Rice's visit. The U.S. has not abandoned the road map, but has certainly pushed it aside; the accepted formulation now is "We can't be bound to the road map." In other words, it has become a nuisance rather than a tool. The "After you!" tradition that Sharon worked so hard to establish, which kept him from needing to move the peace process forward as long as the Palestinians did not live up to their commitment to eliminate terror, has in effect been annulled. Progress, at least the verbal kind, is now possible. That is exactly what Rice and Livni wanted, to the chagrin of Olmert, who insists on sticking to the "sequence" spelled out in the road map.

Foreign Ministry. Love

The European diplomat gazed up from his plate of Norwegian salmon at Tel Aviv's Raphael restaurant and asked about the likelihood of Livni becoming prime minister. "We love her," he said. "She is the person who best explains Israel's positions. I saw her at a conference in Sweden attended by Arab foreign ministers as well. She exceeded her allotted time, and not a whisper could be heard in the hall. Everyone was fascinated."

"Livni represents peace," the diplomat said. And Olmert? "We don't believe him. He's considered a Likudnik, even though his Sde Boker speech was accepted very well in Europe." In her speech at the Herzliya Conference this week, Livni's positions were tougher than Olmert's. He speaks of withdrawal and evacuation, and she speaks of maintaining Israeli interests, control of sacred sites and most of the settlers. These nuances did not change the European diplomat's mind. "Will Olmert survive?" he asked. "And if not, will we get Livni?"

The Bush administration is also aware of Olmert's weakness, but wants to protect him. The steps to strengthen Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will succeed only if Olmert is also strengthened, someone in Washington joked this week. Perhaps the administration is simply not convinced that Livni will be the next prime minister, rather than, say, Netanyahu. Moreover, to protect Olmert is to protect a reasonable timetable. A change at the top in Jerusalem does not suit the rapidly closing window in Washington. Bush will soon be a lame duck. If Israel gets caught up in another election campaign, Rice's plans will be frozen, leaving her successor, under Hillary Clinton or John McCain, to thaw them out.

Livni took another step this week along the road to replacing Olmert: She appointed herself head of the "Rule of Law" gang, expressing vocal support for "investigations in sensitive places." It was not hard to spot the differences between her approach and that of Shimon Peres, who rushed to declare his belief in Olmert's innocence when he heard about the decision to investigate the prime minister. Perhaps Olmert is sorry he appointed her acting justice minister rather than someone more convenient. Perhaps he should have offered her the President's Residence.

And a question

The prime minister boasted this week that he consulted 15 people before deciding to support Gabi Ashkenazi as chief of staff. Defense Minister Amir Peretz submitted his own list of consultants. Ex-officials who were ignored until yesterday have suddenly become fashionable. After the consultations, the predetermined candidate was approved.

And now the question must be asked: What would have happened had Olmert consulted with Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Mordechai before appointing Peretz defense minister, or had Peretz and Olmert consulted someone before going to war in Lebanon?

By Shmuel Rosner (Washington) and Aluf Benn (Jerusalem)