The Obama administration is on a charm offensive with Israel and the pro-Israel community, as I’ve noted in more than one story, most recently here.
Perhaps the most impressive display came during this week’s Anti-Defamation League national leadership conference in Washington, when the civil rights group got five major administration figures to speak.
The true double whammy was Daniel Shapiro, the deputy national security adviser who deals with the Middle East, who spoke in the morning, and Dennis Ross, the White House’s top Iran policy official, who spoke in the evening.
It’s virtually impossible to reach either official, on or off the record, first of all; the on the record appearance was a first for each.
Additionally, each outlined in detail — ADL’s Foxman described it to me as an "inventory" — the "good news." Shapiro focused on the strengths of the relationship with Israel, and Ross on the steps the United States plans to take to press Iran into nuclear transparency.
Ross:
We are actively working with our international partners to clarify the choice Iran faces and to impose a real cost to Iran for its continuing failures to live up to its obligations. That includes adopting a meaningful UN Security Council resolution in the coming weeks. For the sake of regional security and for the preservation of international order, Iran must face real consequences for its continued defiance of the international community.
If Iran makes the right choice and acts to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program, it stands to gain much. But that is an Iranian choice. For if it continues on its path of defiance, Iran has much to lose.
The President has been very clear about the meaning and danger of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms. And no one should doubt President Obama’s seriousness when he says that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Shapiro:
Since taking office, President Obama has taken what was already a strong U.S.-Israel defense relationship, and broadened and deepened it across the board. Our annual military assistance to Israel has increased to nearly $3 billion. We have reinvigorated defense cooperation, including on missile defense, highlighted by the 1,000 U.S. servicemembers who traveled to Israel to participate in the Juniper Cobra military exercises last fall. We have intensive dialogues and exchanges with Israel – in political, military, and intelligence channels – on regional security issues and counter-terrorism, from which we both benefit, and which enable us to coordinate our strategies whenever possible. We have redoubled our efforts to ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge in the region, which has been publicly recognized and appreciated by numerous senior Israeli security officials. And we continue to support the development of Israeli missile defense systems, such as Arrow and David’s Sling, to upgrade Patriot missile defense systems first deployed during the Gulf War, and to work cooperatively with Israel on an advanced radar system to provide early warning of incoming missiles.
The ties between our defense establishments are extraordinary. Throughout the U.S. military and the IDF, from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, down to generals, colonels, and majors in every branch, personal relationships have been forged, joint work is being done, and a sense of common purpose and shared mission animates the partnership.
We take these steps because the threats Israel faces are real, and because many of the same forces threaten us and our interests. Whether it is an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, Hizballah acquiring increasingly sophisticated weaponry from Syria, or Hamas smuggling weapons through the tunnels into Gaza, Israelis stand on the front lines, often at great cost, against forces that seek to take the Middle East in a lawless, dangerous, and unstable direction, putting our interests at risk. When President Obama wrote recently that “our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests”, and that “no wedge will be driven between us”, this is what he was talking about.
President Obama has also steadfastly defended Israel against attempts to de-legitimize it, whether at the UN or other international bodies, while always standing up for Israel’s right to self-defense against terrorism and other threats. These are commitments that will not change. When it became clear that the Durban II Conference would unfairly and unreasonably single out Israel for criticism, we did not hesitate to pull out of the conference and lead many of our allies to do the same. We have repeatedly and vigorously voted against and spoken out against the Goldstone Report. When Turkey summarily cancelled Israel’s participation in a key military exercise last fall, we did not hesitate for one minute to pull out as well, and we have worked diligently to preserve a positive relationship between Israel and Turkey, which has been an important contributor to security in the region.
Nobody made any secret, either, of the fact that both men are Jewish and have strong pro-Israel cred. An anonymous administration insider, speaking to Politico, had bashed Ross for being "far more sensitive to Netanyahu’s coalition politics than to U.S. interests."
I found the charge slightly weird and unsophisticated: Ross, in his patient, didactic way, has made it clear in the past that he has little patience for Netanyahu. If anything, my perception was that — at least at the outset of this imbroglio over Israeli building in Jerusalem — Ross, if anything, was driving the Netanyahu rebukes, if only because making Jerusalem an issue was distracting attention from Iran.
In any case, fairly or unfairly, the Politico leak led to an argument over whether charges of "dual loyalty" were brewing inside the White House.
Foxman made a point of arguing that there is no contradiction between being a reliable defender of Israel and an American patriot:
We so proudly embrace your patriotism, your integrity, your commitment, your love of your country, your love of the Jewish people.
There was a poignant, ADL-typical confluence: At this conference, the ADL took up Arizona’s laws targeting illegal- immigrants-and-folks-who-look-like-them.
As Abe delivered his impassioned defense of the natural American tendency to love more than one country at a time, he sported a button: "We are a nation of immigrants."
Speeches after the jump.
[[READMORE]]
Remarks before the Anti-Defamation League by Daniel B. Shapiro, Senior Director for the Middle East and North Africa, National Security Council
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the Anti-Defamation League, an organization we in the Obama Administration are honored to consider a partner in so many of our most important initiatives. I congratulate your legendary leader, Abe Foxman, and your remarkable staff, for their tremendous record of accomplishment year after year.
You will hear from a number of my colleagues throughout your conference, including our Special Envoy for Combating Anti-Semitism, Hannah Rosenthal, our State Department Counterterrorism Coordinator Ambassador Dan Benjamin, and my NSC colleague Ambassador Dennis Ross, who will speak at length on the pressing issue of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. For my part, I’d like to focus on the two areas on which I spend the bulk of my time: managing the bilateral U.S.-Israel relationship and our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts through a comprehensive regional peace.
Ensuring Israel’s security in a hostile regional and international environment
President Obama’s approach towards Israel is grounded above all in the unbreakable bond between our two countries, our common values, the deep and interwoven connections between our peoples, and our shared interests. We take inspiration from the remarkable story of Israel: the Zionist dream first voiced by Theodor Herzl, whose 150th birthday we celebrate this week; the painstaking struggle to build a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, despite threats from all directions; and the extraordinary flourishing of a high-tech economy, a thriving cultural life, and a strong military in the modern State of Israel. We are proud to call Israel our partner in so many areas – science, technology, education, agriculture, and of course, security. The United States benefits greatly from the breadth and depth of this partnership. The President’s policies have upheld our ideals and served our mutual interests on the most important issues we face.
President Obama has made ensuring Israel’s security a key pillar of our Middle East policy. We do it because it is the right thing to do, standing by a key partner, whom the President has called “more than a strategic ally”, in the face of numerous threats to its citizens and even to its existence. And we do it because it serves our national security interests. As the Vice President said at Tel Aviv University, progress toward a more peaceful and stable Middle East comes when all understand that there is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.
This commitment to Israel’s security is not a slogan for us. We live it every day in the policies we carry out. Since taking office, President Obama has taken what was already a strong U.S.-Israel defense relationship, and broadened and deepened it across the board. Our annual military assistance to Israel has increased to nearly $3 billion. We have reinvigorated defense cooperation, including on missile defense, highlighted by the 1,000 U.S. servicemembers who traveled to Israel to participate in the Juniper Cobra military exercises last fall. We have intensive dialogues and exchanges with Israel – in political, military, and intelligence channels – on regional security issues and counter-terrorism, from which we both benefit, and which enable us to coordinate our strategies whenever possible. We have redoubled our efforts to ensure Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge in the region, which has been publicly recognized and appreciated by numerous senior Israeli security officials. And we continue to support the development of Israeli missile defense systems, such as Arrow and David’s Sling, to upgrade Patriot missile defense systems first deployed during the Gulf War, and to work cooperatively with Israel on an advanced radar system to provide early warning of incoming missiles.
The ties between our defense establishments are extraordinary. Throughout the U.S. military and the IDF, from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, down to generals, colonels, and majors in every branch, personal relationships have been forged, joint work is being done, and a sense of common purpose and shared mission animates the partnership.
We take these steps because the threats Israel faces are real, and because many of the same forces threaten us and our interests. Whether it is an Iran bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, Hizballah acquiring increasingly sophisticated weaponry from Syria, or Hamas smuggling weapons through the tunnels into Gaza, Israelis stand on the front lines, often at great cost, against forces that seek to take the Middle East in a lawless, dangerous, and unstable direction, putting our interests at risk. When President Obama wrote recently that “our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests”, and that “no wedge will be driven between us”, this is what he was talking about.
President Obama has also steadfastly defended Israel against attempts to de-legitimize it, whether at the UN or other international bodies, while always standing up for Israel’s right to self-defense against terrorism and other threats. These are commitments that will not change. When it became clear that the Durban II Conference would unfairly and unreasonably single out Israel for criticism, we did not hesitate to pull out of the conference and lead many of our allies to do the same. We have repeatedly and vigorously voted against and spoken out against the Goldstone Report. When Turkey summarily cancelled Israel’s participation in a key military exercise last fall, we did not hesitate for one minute to pull out as well, and we have worked diligently to preserve a positive relationship between Israel and Turkey, which has been an important contributor to security in the region.
Pursuing comprehensive peace in the Middle East
Our pursuit of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is inextricably linked to the U.S.-Israeli partnership, as there has never been an Israeli government that did not pursue this goal fervently. The President made this a top priority from Day One because he knew that achieving peace would take time, and that neglecting this issue for several years only increased the danger Israel faces from Hizballah, Hamas, and Iran. Those dangers will by no means be eliminated if Israel achieves peace agreements with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors, but the regional environment in which they operate would be far more friendly to Israel, and far less to those who pose such threats.
He also knew that achieving a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state, which is in Israeli and American interests. It would also give people across the region hope in their struggle to overcome the forces of radicalism. He appointed George Mitchell as our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, with the goal of achieving an outcome of two states living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive regional peace that brings to an end the conflict between Israel and Syria, Israel and Lebanon, and normal relations between Israel and all Arab states.
We recognize the doubts, fears, and skepticism with which many Israelis view such declarations. After several failed attempts to negotiate peace, a terrible intifada of suicide bombs, and withdrawals from Gaza and south Lebanon rewarded by thousands of rockets and missile attacks, such doubts are understandable. Today, Hamas continues to rule harshly in Gaza, rejecting any compromise with Israel, smuggling weapons, and cruelly holding Gilad Shalit in captivity. He should be released to his family without delay. Our policy on Hamas has not changed: to gain the legitimacy it seeks, Hamas must comply with the conditions set down by the Quartet – recognizing the State of Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements.
But we also know that the status quo is not sustainable. Demography makes it unsustainable: Israel cannot remain a secure, Jewish, democratic state without the emergence of a Palestinian state. In this, most fundamental sense, the rise of a peaceful, viable Palestinian state, in which the Palestinian people can live, travel, conduct business, govern themselves, and enjoy the dignity of a sovereign people, is not only what Palestinians deserve – it is strategic Israeli interest and a strategic American interest.
This goal, this requirement to fulfill the needs of all parties, can only be achieved through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. But it can be achieved. After previous failed peace efforts, with so much mutual mistrust and suspicion, it is easy to give up hope. But we still have hope, and we believe, from our conversations with them, that Israeli and Palestinian leaders still have hope. We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.
In recent weeks, Senator Mitchell and our entire administration have been working hard to get proximity talks between Israelis and Palestinians launched, as a first step toward the direct negotiations that will be required to reach agreements on key final status issues. Those efforts were sidetracked following Israel’s announcement of the approval of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem during the Vice President’s visit and the day after proximity talks were announced. Since then, we have worked with both parties to restore trust, and to try to ensure the parties will not take actions that undermine trust or appear to prejudge the outcome of negotiations. But we have also made clear to both sides that the talks need to get underway and, that we cannot let every controversy become a crisis or lead to a breakdown. With the Arab League’s endorsement of these talks at their meeting two days ago in Cairo, we are hopeful that we will be able to move forward with proximity talks in the near term. These talks will give us a chance to explore the parties’ positions, attempt to narrow gaps, and conduct an exchange of views on permanent status issues, enabling them to move into direct talks to reach agreements as soon as possible.
As our diplomatic efforts move forward, we recognize the need to strengthen Palestinian leaders who are committed to peace, and develop the institutions necessary for a peaceful, successful Palestinian state. President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad represent a Palestinian leadership that we believe is committed to peace and building the institutions that can support it. We strongly support Prime Minister Fayyad’s plan to build the institutions of Palestinian statehood, which represents a new chapter in the Palestinian national movement – focused on building now for the future, rather than dwelling on grievances of the past. We are supporting the training of Palestinian security forces, who are demonstrating effectiveness and professionalism in the West Bank, according to the toughest graders of all – Israeli security officials. At the same time, we take a firm position that Palestinian leaders must press forward with institutional and economic reforms, be vigilant in fulfilling their security responsibilities. Palestinian and other Arab leaders must also prepare their populations for peace, by ending all acts and statements of incitement, educating for coexistence, reaching out to the Israeli public, and beginning the process of normalization with Israel. We will not hesitate, as we have in recent weeks, to condemn acts of incitement and calling into question historic Jewish connections to Jerusalem.
Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken important steps demonstrating their commitment to peace, by embracing the two-state solution, dismantling roadblocks and checkpoints, increasing economic opportunities in the West Bank, and announcing a 10-month settlement moratorium. It will be important in the weeks and months ahead to see additional enhancements of freedom of moment and economic activity for Palestinians, further efforts to empower the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, and a concerted effort to ease the harsh economic conditions in Gaza.
Arab governments, too, have responsibilities we will expect them to fulfill. Their support for proximity talks is welcome, but our expectations do not end there. We need them to be vigilant in denying funding and weaponry to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, continue to support President Abbas in negotiations, provide consistent financial support for the Palestinian Authority and its institution-building program, and reach out to the Israeli public and resume exchanges of various kinds with Israel to demonstrate that Israel’s isolation in the region is ending.
As these negotiations unfold, the commitment of the leaders and their publics will surely be tested. They will be tested by the actions of those in their own societies who oppose peace. They will be tested by decisions made by the other party. They will be tested by their own doubts. At times, we may ask the parties to do difficult things – nothing that would ever compromise Israel’s security or Palestinian goals for an independent and viable state, but difficult nevertheless. We know very well that a solution cannot be imposed on the parties from the outside – peace can only come from direct talks and the two sides taking account of the needs of the other. At the same time, there could be times and contexts in which U.S. ideas can be useful. When appropriate, we are prepared to share them. What we will try to instill at all times in Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab negotiators is the need to invest in the other party; to view the negotiations as a shared enterprise toward a common goal; to look for shared successes, not zero-sum approaches; to acknowledge both publicly and privately the helpful and difficult steps taken by the other party; to always consider what steps they can take to help the other party succeed, and what actions they may consider justified, but might nevertheless defer in the interest of minimizing difficulties for the other side.
We have and will continue to put so much effort into this enterprise because, as President Obama has said, achieving peace is in the interest of Israelis, Arabs, and Palestinians, and it should be pursued for its own sake, and it is also very much in our national security interests. We do not believe that resolving these conflicts would bring an end to all conflicts in the Middle East, nor cause Iran to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons. We do not believe this conflict endangers the lives of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we do believe that ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state is very much in our national interests. We do believe that depriving Iran of a conflict they can exploit by arming their terrorist proxies is very much in our national interests. And we do believe that a world in which the story of successful Palestinian state-building and peacemaking with Israel, rather than Palestinian suffering and conflict with Israel, leads the news across the Arab world, would do much to transform attitudes positively and deprive extremists of an evocative propaganda tool.
Nearly a year ago in Cairo, President Obama called for a new spirit of partnership in the region and beyond, with broader engagement on education, economic development, health, science and technology. In that speech, watched by Muslims around the world, President Obama made clear that America’s bonds with Israel are unbreakable and that Arab states must recognize Israel’s legitimacy, and that those who accept our outstretched hand must do so on that basis. If we can succeed in our quest for Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace, the primary beneficiaries will of course be the parties themselves, relieved of the burdens of a conflict that has gone on too long. But it will be our victory as well, and will contribute to broader interests and goals that we have in common with peace-loving people across the Middle East.
Remarks by Dennis Ross
Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Conference
Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC
May 3, 2010
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Thank you for welcoming me here tonight to your annual conference in Washington. The ADL is a historic organization that has been championing the rights of all Americans and people everywhere for nearly 100 years – it represents the values that define what is special about the United States. As you all know, your remarkable leader Abe Foxman has never met an issue of injustice he has not taken on with his unmatched energy. And he has been so effective because of the megaphone provided by your civic activism.
I know you have had a full day of discussions on many of the issues that I care deeply about. You should thank Jess Hordes, a quiet but ever-present Washington insider, for putting together some of the best minds in this town to analyze and debate many of the key foreign policy challenges we face today in the Middle East and beyond.
You heard from my colleague on the National Security Council staff Dan Shapiro who works tirelessly to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East, Ambassador Dan Benjamin, our expert coordinator for counterterrorism policy, and Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal, who takes on anti-Semitism internationally. They represent the commitment and dedication of the men and women who lead this administration’s efforts to make the United States more secure and to produce a more peaceful world.
That commitment starts with President Obama. The President is focused on solving international challenges even while tackling great domestic concerns. He is determined to keep America safe and to use American leadership to advance a more peaceful and just global order. And he is unwavering in his pursuit of policies that are right and effective regardless of the political cost.
As special assistant to the President and senior director for the Central Region, I see a region in which we have over 175,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are fighting al Qaeda and its terrorist off-shoots from South Asia to North Africa. We are mobilizing the world against Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. We are bolstering those who are threatened by Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas. And we are trying to resolve historic conflicts that provide breeding grounds for extremists and are exploited by those who reject peace, threaten the safety and security of our friends and allies, and are hostile to the United States of America.
The President does not shy away from assuming our responsibilities to lead in all these areas or from making the tough decisions that are required for us to do so. He understands the stakes but also understands that to counter terror and extremists, we must employ all the tools of statecraft: military, economic and developmental, diplomatic, technological, organizational, and our public messaging —or what I call the framing of our aims and the threats we are confronting. The same mix of tools must be employed in preventing proliferation and denying those who threaten our interests the ability to build their leverage. We must be able to isolate those who are threatening our interests, even while we offer them the opportunity to change their behavior. They must see what they have to gain in taking a new path and what they stand to lose if they do not.
Making their bad behavior the issue —not our unwillingness to engage—as it relates to state-actors like Iran can affect their calculus, particularly as it builds more international support for our position. And, pursuing peace is instrumental to shaping a new regional context. It is neither a substitute for dealing with the other challenges in the region nor is it a panacea. But, especially as it relates to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, it would deny extremists—whether state or non-state actors—a tool they use to exploit grievance and anger.
Having set out this framework, let me talk a little about how President Obama has directed us to apply it in practice.
In Afghanistan, the President has significantly increased our forces while also greatly enhancing our efforts to promote good governance, combat corruption, and foster development. He used our readiness to do more to mobilize more forces—combat and trainers—from our allies. By securing and improving the daily lives of ordinary people, we are undermining the forces that fuel violent extremism.
This strategy that our military, diplomats, and assistance providers are implementing on the ground—in coordination with our NATO and other international partners—grew out of a systematic and serious review of our policies led by the President himself. t involves an enormous commitment of our servicemen and women as well as a significant financial cost, but the President has made clear that no price is too high when it comes to protecting American security. That is why the entire national security team is continually focused on ensuring that our strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan is working and doing whatever necessary to make it succeed.
In Iraq, we are moving forward with responsibly ending the war. In recent weeks, we have seen Iraqi security forces leading successful military operations against al-Qaeda. The United States will end our combat mission in Iraq by the end of August, and in accordance with the U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement, all U.S. forces will be out of Iraq by the end of next year. And we continue to encourage Iraqi political leaders to act with transparency and to form an inclusive and representative government.
We are also actively encouraging our partners in the region to reintegrate Iraq into the Middle East. The Iraqi people will continue to have a partner in the United States as they face their longer-term challenges of building a stable, secure and prosperous future.
Our commitment to security and countering those who threaten our friends is also reflected in our approach throughout the Middle East. In the Gulf, we are upgrading our defense relationships with our partners by improving their defensive capabilities, and ensuring greater interoperability with our own forces to solidify our security partnerships for the long-term.
We are working with our partners in Yemen to aggressively combat al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula whose own dangerous capabilities and intentions were revealed in the attempted Christmas Day attack.
In Lebanon, we seek to strengthen the institutions of the Lebanese state, including the Lebanese Armed Forces, to limit the influence of Hizballah. Hizballah must not be allowed to continually strengthen its arsenal, and those who supply it with increasingly dangerous and sophisticated arms are playing a dangerous game.
By transferring weapons, including long-range missiles to Hizballah, Syria is undertaking provocative and destabilizing behavior. As Secretary Clinton said the other night, “President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region.” Having spent countless hours working with his father, President Hafez al-Assad, who often said that he had taken the strategic option for peace, I know what Syria stands to gain if it takes the path of peace – prosperity and economic modernization, long-term stability, and a renewed relationship with the United States. But Syria must understand that continuing to arm Hizballah will yield none of this. It will only produce further instability and heighten the prospect of war—and that is not a path that will serve Syria’s interests.
But the greatest challenge to peace and security in the Middle East lies with Iran—and I want to address it in a little more detail.
When President Obama took office, Iran had already assembled thousands of centrifuges and accumulated nearly a bomb’s worth of low enriched uranium.
Iran was in active violation of five UN Security Council Resolutions, and its sponsorship of terrorism throughout the region – in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza – was imposing violence and coercion across the Middle East. Iran was deliberately undermining our efforts to bring stability to Lebanon, peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and security and sovereignty to Iraq. The situation was unsustainable and stood to grow far worse should Iran succeed with its nuclear ambitions.
A nuclear-armed Iran would almost certainly precipitate a dangerous arms race in the Middle East, where states are already hyper-sensitive in their competition for regional influence and security.
The Middle East is a dangerous and challenging enough place today; the dangers of a nuclear Middle East where there are multiple triggers for conflict are not hard to imagine.
A nuclear-armed Iran would deal a devastating blow to the non-proliferation regime, something the President is determined to strengthen. Last month, the President brought together 46 nations in the first-ever Nuclear Security Summit to work collectively to secure vulnerable nuclear material. He signed the New Start Treaty with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenals as a step on the way toward the President’s goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. And we are actively engaged in the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference this month in New York where we seek to promote compliance and make it harder for non-nuclear states to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran’s ongoing nuclear program undermines this entire nuclear security agenda.
And finally, a nuclear-armed Iran would send the unacceptable message that defiance pays – that there is no price for ignoring international obligations and openly defying UN Security Council Resolutions.
For all these reasons, this administration sought a new approach to Iran – an approach that offered the best chance at changing Iran’s dangerous behaviors. President Obama made clear to the leaders and people of Iran that he sought a new relationship between our countries, one based on mutual respect.
And we sought to engage Iran on the full range of issues that have divided our countries for 30 years. Not engaging Iran failed to change Iran’s behavior, so we offered engagement without any illusions, understanding that Iran must be faced with a choice: to live up to its international obligations and reap the benefits of normal relations with the United States and the world – or to continue its defiance and face increased isolation and painful consequences.
So far, Iran’s answer to us and our international partners in the P5+1 has been, “No – not interested.” Iran has turned down a creative offer from the IAEA supported by Russia, France, and the United States, to produce nuclear fuel using Iran’s own low enriched uranium.
It was an offer with humanitarian benefits, ensuring that Iran would meet its need for medical isotopes. And it was an offer that gave Iran the opportunity to demonstrate clearly that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. It would have built the confidence of both sides that further agreements could be possible. We went to great lengths to demonstrate our commitment to this proposal and to offer assurances about the delivery of the fuel assemblies. Unfortunately, the Iranians have rejected the proposal at every turn and sought to redefine its terms in way that reinforces suspicion rather than builds confidence.
Just as they rejected the Tehran Research Reactor proposal, Iran has refused to discuss its nuclear program with the P5+1, a commitment it made in October. Iran recently began to enrich a portion of its uranium to 20 percent, and is still not providing the IAEA with complete information about its previously covert enrichment site whose construction further violated Iran’s NPT obligations. At the same time, Iran continues the brutal repression of its own citizens and prohibits their universal right to express themselves freely and choose their own future.
President Obama has stated that our offer of engagement with Iran still stands and we remain prepared to pursue a better, more peaceful future. Iran does have rights, but those rights also require living up to responsibilities that Iran has a track-record of ignoring. Iran seeks rights without responsibility. We are not singling Iran out; it is choosing to single itself out. We are actively working with our international partners to clarify the choice Iran faces and to impose a real cost to Iran for its continuing failures to live up to its obligations. That includes adopting a meaningful UN Security Council resolution in the coming weeks.
For the sake of regional security and for the preservation of international order, Iran must face real consequences for its continued defiance of the international community. If Iran makes the right choice and acts to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program, it stands to gain much. But that is an Iranian choice. For if it continues on its path of defiance, Iran has much to lose.
The President has been very clear about the meaning and danger of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms. And no one should doubt President Obama’s seriousness when he says that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Countering Iran’s efforts to build its leverage and coercive capabilities in the region is necessary if we are to see a more stable and secure Middle East. Clearly, one way that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The continuation of the conflict strengthens Iran’s rejectionist partners, Hamas and Hezbollah.
And Iran deliberately uses the conflict to expose even the moderate leaders in the region by stoking the fears of their populations and playing to the worst anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist prejudices.
I won’t repeat for you tonight what we are doing to try to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East since you heard earlier from Dan Shapiro who will travel later this week with Senator Mitchell in our ongoing efforts to revive Isreali-Palestinian negotiations. But I will say that our efforts to advance the cause of peace – something I have dedicated much of my own life to – are in our interests, and the interests of the Israelis and Palestinians. That is a reality that has been recognized by every administration I have worked in and an objective that we seek today with even greater urgency because the status quo is not sustainable.
The status quo is not sustainable because demographic realities mean that Israel cannot be a secure, Jewish, democratic state without a resolution to the conflict and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
The status quo is not sustainable because it only strengthens and emboldens the rejectionists who want to see Israel disappear at the expense of those in the region prepared to live in peace. And the status quo is not sustainable, because the longer it persists, there will be a diminishing constituency on both sides who support the two-state solution.
Our push for peace is rooted in the principle that Israel must be secure, and our security cooperation with Israel is a core pillar of U.S. policy in the Middle East. As Secretary Gates said last week, “our defense relationship is stronger than ever, to the mutual benefit of both nations. The United States and our ally Israel share many of the same security challenges, from combating terrorism to confronting the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear weapons.”
This commitment to Israel’s security is real. It is reflected in the billions of dollars we provide annually in security assistance to Israel; in the reinvigorated consultations we have undertaken to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region; in the joint training exercises we pursue; in technological cooperation as we work to develop innovations in missile defense, air defense, and short-range rocket defense; and in regular defense and security exchanges where we benefit from lessons learned in Israel’s own battles against terrorism and asymmetric threats.
A strong and secure Israel is in the interests of the Untied States of America. For President Obama, our commitment to Israel’s security is not an empty slogan. It is real, it serves the cause of peace and stability in the region, and it is something that is unshakable. Like with all allies, we may have differences, but as the President recently wrote, “No wedge will be driven between us. We will have our differences, but when we do, we will work to resolve them as close allies.”
The challenges of the Central Region are many, complicated, and daunting. But President Obama has shaped a framework for dealing with them and has demonstrated the determination to do what is necessary to secure our interests. Thank you very much.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
