Israel, Iran, Syria, and Obama: Now what?

By Danny Vinik

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit the White House next week, his first meeting with President Barack Obama since the Iranian nuclear deal took effect. The Obama-Netanyahu relationship deteriorated over the past year, culminating in Netanyahu’s March speech before a joint meeting of Congress where he sharply criticized the agreement. The president refused to meet with Netanyahu during that visit.
Eight months later, Netanyahu remains every bit as opposed to the nuclear deal, but his efforts to derail it have failed. Congressional Republicans were unable to muster enough votes to block it and it officially took effect on October 18. Now, the implementation process begins.

As Obama and Netanyahu seek to use the meeting on November 9 to mend their relations, we sat down with Michael Herzog, a retired brigadier general in the Israeli Defense Force who has held senior positions under four Israel ministers of defense. His father was Israel’s president from 1983 to 1993 and his brother currently leads the opposition party.
Herzog explained why the recent violence in Israel poses such a threat to security and argued that the recent military actions by Russia and Iran in Syria are a result of the nuclear deal. He doesn’t expect any major new initiatives from Obama and Netanyahu during the visit but is hopeful they can repair their relationship enough to work together across an array of issues, from implementation of the deal to the Islamic State in Syria.

As to whether the visit could jumpstart the Israel-Palestinian peace process, as Secretary of State John Kerry wants, he’s less sanguine: “As someone who’s spent over two decades of his life negotiating peace with the Palestinians and almost all of our Arab neighbors, we’re at a very low point right now.”
Danny Vinik: How worried are you about the potential for a Third Intifada?
Michael Herzog: When you talk about Intifada, you imagine a mass popular eruption with some political orientation and guidance, and this is not the case that you see now.  You have young people, mostly teenagers, taking matters into their own hand out of frustration, incitement, and various other reasons. This wave is carried through social networks. It is fueled by a certain atmosphere, and these people, on an individual basis, decide to take matters in their own hands and do it. … I am concerned because of this characterization. It means, as I said, less addresses to deal with, less restraining elements. It could go on, this low-key four, five, six incidents a day, for quite a while.
DV: What can Prime Minister Netanyahu do to stop or deter these attacks?
MH: The first tool that our government employs out of the toolbox is security measures: more troops on the ground [and] more experienced people in dealing with such situations so that if anybody comes with a knife to kill an Israeli citizen, rather than meeting a panicked citizen, he will meet an experienced serviceman who can better deal with this situation. … When this eruption calms down, I think our government will have to think about other tools, political tools, how to improve infrastructure in East Jerusalem which is neglected and most perpetrators come from these neighborhoods. They have Israeli IDs. They can move anywhere in Israel and carry out terror attacks, which they have done.
DV: Netanyahu recently face a sharp backlash for comments partially blaming the Holocaust on a Palestinian. Has that contributed to the unrest in Israel?
MH: I think we will have to really examine deeply what motivated these people to do what they do. I believe there’s more than one element here, more than one cause. … These people feel that their leadership let them down. They see now opinion polls indicating two-thirds saying Mahmoud Abbas and their leaders should step down. … And naturally, some of the statements of our Prime Minister, which I personally believe should not have been said, of course were unhelpful, to say the least, and contributed, but I don’t think you can pin this whole eruption on these very statements.
DV: What is the current view of the deal in Israel?
MH: The feeling is that Israelis look around and see what happened since the deal was finalized. Russia deployed in Syria, and it is no coincidence that it deployed after the deal was finalized. I think the deal cleared the way in their mind that they can do that. Iran escalated its military operations in Syria with fighting force under a Russian air umbrella. It’s happening these very days in Syria. Iran-Saudi relations further sank to a nadir. Iran is test firing a new missile in violation of a UN Security Council Resolution. Iran just announced that it’s going to increase its defense budget by a third, and their leader, Khomeini, is explicitly saying that he will not expand cooperation with the United States beyond a nuclear deal. All of this happened in the last three months. So, when we, Israelis, look around and we see that picture, it doesn’t bode well, and the feeling is that against the background of a total meltdown or near total meltdown in the Middle East, Iran is emboldened now and can play a bigger role. It’s legitimized politically. It’s emboldened financially.
DV: What is the current view in Israel of Russia’s military actions in Syria?
MH: There are mixed feelings in Israel about it. First, people think that Russia took advantage of the void filled in Syria to step in and help keep Bashar al-Assad in power. It’s not only about fighting Jihadis. As we know, there are other Russian ambitions there. For Israel, the biggest concern is that our independence — our ability to operate independently in Syria if the security need commands — will not be affected.
DV: What are Israelis looking for to enhance security at the meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MH: I would say that Israelis expect first and foremost that their security concerns will be addressed and especially what we see around us in Syria: the Iranian moves, and Hezbollah with 100,000 rockets trying to establish an active front against Israel in southern Syria, Hamas rearming itself, Jihadi groups on our borders and so on. … Israelis would also like to see strict implementation of the Iran nuclear deal and that any violations, minor or major, will be dealt with and there will be consequences. And finally, I think Israelis expect to see a more assertive U.S. role in the Middle East. There is a feeling that the U.S. role has weakened over the time.
DV: What are some of the specific actions that Israelis would want to see? Would it be a no-fly zone over Syria or U.S. ground troops in Syria?
MH: I don’t think there is any Israeli expectation for ground troops or boots on the ground. That’s not the discussion. Israel does not want to get involved in that war. It is not our war. We have no desire to get involved in it. But there are several big concerns for Israel. First is, of course, cross-border attacks; secondly is shipment of strategic weapons from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon; and thirdly, the Iranian, I would say, ambition to establish an active front against Israel with Hezbollah in southern Syria.
DV: What do you expect Prime Minister Netanyahu to say when he visits the White House?
MH: I assume that high on his agenda will be all those security concerns that we just discussed, and I’m sure he will portray the situation as seen from Israel — the wave of violence, the regional turmoil, the dangers around us and so on — and discuss this in the context of U.S.-Israeli cooperation. As you know, both countries are talking about the extension of a ten-year [memorandum of understanding] regulating U.S. assistance to Israel and that will be probably on the agenda. I don’t expect the Prime Minister to come with any new bold initiatives and, in any case, given the violent eruption back home, the feeling is that this is not the time now to reenergize a political process between us and the Palestinians.
DV: How important do you feel that this meeting is to try to ease the tension in the Obama-Netanyahu relationship?
MH: It is no secret that there are major political differences between the two leaders and two governments. There is no personal chemistry between them, and on the two big policy issues, namely the Palestinian issue and Iran, we all know where the two parties are. So, I don’t think any of them expects to bridge these gaps in the November 9th meeting. However, there is no desire, either in Israel or here in Washington, to continue quarrelling with each other.
DV: Has the tension between the two leaders caused any long-term damage to the U.S.-Israel relationship?
MH: I don’t think so. I believe that the fabric of U.S.-Israel relations is very solid. And yes, there are tensions; yes, there is damage to the relations, but this could be corrected, I believe, in a different political environment
DV: Are you worried that, within U.S. politics, the bipartisan support for Israel is cracking?
MH: When it comes to security, I don’t think so. I think the backing is bipartisan [and] is solid. No matter what you think about the policies of the Obama administration, Israelis recognize that this administration backed Israel’s security needs no less than other administrations.
DV: In the President Obama’s last year in office, what can he and Secretary of State John Kerry do to further peace in the Middle East?
MH: As someone who’s spent over two decades of his life negotiating peace with the Palestinians and almost all of our Arab neighbors, we’re at a very low point right now. The prospects for resumed negotiations are low and I think almost everybody realizes that even if you get the parties to sit down to the table and negotiate, this will not be resolved.