Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
bjbjLULU GWEN IFILL: For more on the growing debate, we turn to Jeffrey Goldberg of The
Atlantic magazine. He interviewed President Obama on this issue for an article published
last week. Jamie Fly, who served on the staff of George W. Bush's National Security Council,
he's now executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative. And James Dobbins, he has
held various diplomatic posts at both the State Department and the White House. He's
now a director at the RAND Corporation. Jeff Goldberg, you had a 45-minute meeting with
the president on this topic. And after watching the conversation that happened after this
meeting at the White House today, did the prime minister get what he came for? Did the
president get what he invited him here for? JEFFREY GOLDBERG, The Atlantic: I think that
there's a zero percent possibility that either man is going to leave these meetings getting
all that he wanted. I think that the prime minister was coming to Washington to get a
level of specificity from the president that the president is not going to give him in
terms of, by what date will you attack Iran if they don't accede to your requests, and
how, and what are your red lines? The president indicated in many different ways that he's
not going to provide that level of detail to anyone, in part because he doesn't know.
And in terms of what the president wanted, the president wanted to communicate in broad
terms to the prime minister, as he said, that he has Israel's back. Therefore, you, Mr.
Prime Minister, can stand down. You should not do anything premature or precipitous that
could actually wind up emboldening or strengthening Iran. And I don't think the prime minister
is ever going to promise an American president that he will, from the prime minister's viewpoint,
subcontract out Israel's defense to the United States or to anyone else. GWEN IFILL: Jim
Dobbins, it seems like in the few -- what we have been seeing as the rhetoric has been
building over the last several weeks that there was never going to be a common ground.
So it leads you on to believe whether Israel is playing bad cop and the United States is
playing good cop in this. JAMES DOBBINS, RAND Corporation: Yeah, I don't think these messages
are actually particularly directed at Tehran. I think the Israeli threats are directed largely
at Washington and at the rest of the international community that desperately doesn't want a
war in the Middle East. And they're designed to harden the American position and to increase
the pressure on Iran thereby. And I think they ve succeeded to some degree in doing
that. On the other hand, I think Obama has pushed back hard and effectively on the question
of timing. He's made clear that an early military strike on Iran, whether from the United States
or from Israel, is not in the American interest, not in the Israeli interest. And I think it
will be hard for President Netanyahu to go back and order such a strike in reaction to
that. On the other hand what Netanyahu has received is a rather more explicit Obama commitment
to eventually take military action against Iran if Iran persists in pursuing nuclear
weapons. GWEN IFILL: Jamie Fly, the president told Jeffrey Goldberg last week, I'm not bluffing,
or something to that effect. And he seemed to be saying that again today. Is it as effective
as Jim Dobbins seems to think, to you? JAMIE FLY, Foreign Policy Initiative: I think the
administration's rhetoric, especially with the president in the interview that he gave
to Jeff Goldberg, has been somewhat effective in clearing the waters a bit, because his
administration had not been consistent in its messaging about the military option. But
I think, as Jeff noted, that this is unlikely to leave Prime Minister Netanyahu and his
government satisfied. And the main reason is, the president in his speech focused primarily
on Iran actually obtaining a nuclear weapon, whereas I think the Israelis are much more
concerned, and I think rightfully so, about Iran reaching the point where they have that
capability. And all of the information from the International Atomic Energy Agency and
other reports are that Iran is almost at that point. And so I think that's also the major
difference we're seeing coming out of these meetings. GWEN IFILL: When you use terms like
-- I will continue with you and ask you this, too, Jim Dobbins -- like loose talk of war,
like the president, that does seem like it's stepping up some of the pushback. JAMIE FLY:
I do. I disagree with the president, though, on that, because I don't think this is loose
talk. I think, even if the president believes that there's the possibility of a negotiated
solution -- and he certainly seemed to say that in the interview he did with Jeff -- I
think that the Iranians need to understand that there is real pressure out there and
there is the real possibility of a military option. And, unfortunately, some of the president's
top Cabinet officials, like Secretary of Defense Panetta, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, they have not given off that indication in the last several weeks that this is a real,
viable military option. GWEN IFILL: Do you think there's a real, viable, Jim Dobbins,
military option? JAMES DOBBINS: Well, I think the president's talk about loose talk is probably
directed more at his Republican opponents than at the Israeli prime minister. I don't
think he regards what Netanyahu is saying as particularly loose. I think he regards
it as a credible threat and one that he wants to clearly signal is not consistent with American
policies or views. Personally, I think that, as the president made clear, that an attack
on Iran at this stage would produce a more unified Iranian public. It would validate
certainly to the Iranian public the necessity of achieving nuclear deterrence. And for much
of the rest of the world, I think the sanctions regime would begin to loosen. I think that
Iran would begin to get potential assistance in its nuclear program which it's not getting
now from countries like Pakistan or China or Russia. And I think that at best you d
get a temporary delay and perhaps an explicit acceleration of the program. GWEN IFILL: Jeff,
when they talk about options on the table, the president says all options are on the
table. What options is he realistically talking about? JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Well, I do think
that he believes that the sanctions regime is working. And it does seem to be working.
And, you know, he hopes that those sanctions lead to the building of an off-ramp, where
the Iranians can get off a nuclear path without losing face. And he is talking about -- in
my interview, for the first time, he actually used the term military component to describe
one of the options, obviously the final option. And, you know, I think -- I do believe that
he was obviously doing a lot of messaging to a lot of different parties over the past
week, domestic and international. I do think one of the strong messages he's trying to
deliver right now is to Iran. And he is saying to the supreme leader of Iran, listen, take
me seriously. I'm not kidding when I say that this is unacceptable to me. One of the most
important things he's done, I think, in the last week is to expressly rule out containment.
He is not in any way arguing that the U.S. could or wants to live with an Iran with nuclear
weapons. And that is a -- that was a -- that is a fairly big development. So he's actually
-- he's obviously trying to attempt to limit Israel's options here, but he's also somewhat
limited America's own options in this case. GWEN IFILL: Jamie Fly, is there at its root
here some distrust between two old staunch allies? Take Iran out of it for a moment,
but there doesn't seem to be -- there seems to be more disagreement than agreement that
you normally would see. JAMIE FLY: I think that's certainly the case. And you just look
at -- Prime Minister Netanyahu is here to address the annual meeting of AIPAC. And this
has become almost an annual occurrence, where the prime minister of Israel comes. And there's
always -- at least for the last several years -- been this confrontation between this government
in Israel and between this administration, and for a variety of reasons related to differences
over settlements in the Palestinian peace process. But I do think there is some base
distrust between this Israeli government and this administration. GWEN IFILL: Did that
encounter at the White House today read like confrontation to you? JAMIE FLY: Well, I think
this meeting certainly wasn't as confrontational as the meeting a year ago, and partly because
of how the press availability was managed after the meeting. But I do think the prime
minister made very clear after their meetings that he still believes that -- as any Israeli
leader would, that if he feels that Israel's security is threatened, he will need to take
action. And he noted that he thinks the president understands that as well. GWEN IFILL: Now,
these meetings at the White House went on for two hours. There are still meetings going
on. So, I ask you this, Jim Dobbins. With that full understanding, do you have a sense
that an Israeli unilateral attack on Iran in the ways we ve -- for the reasons we ve
discussed is more or less likely after a meeting like today? JAMES DOBBINS: I think it's somewhat
less likely in the short term. I think, as I said, that the president pushed back pretty
clearly. I don't think that the Israeli prime minister would authorize such an attack if
he believed that it would not, ex post facto, receive American support. I think Obama has
probably drawn that into question. I think it would be hard to do it over the explicit
and firmly expressed advice of the American president. So, in the short term, I think
it probably reduces the risk. But the effect will wear off in a few months. I mean this
is a meeting. You have said something. Events and other things will drive the process. So
it doesn't definitively exclude it, but I d say between, now and the summer, it's less
likely than it was. GWEN IFILL: And, Jeff Goldberg, how much of this tension that we
see has to do with domestic politics in Israel and domestic politics here? JEFFREY GOLDBERG:
Well, you know, one of the most interesting things in this interview I did with the president
last week, he got most exercised when talking about his record on Israel and the way that
Republicans, especially Republican candidates for president, are talking about it. And he
repeated this in his speech to AIPAC, essentially saying -- you know, giving a laundry list
of things he's done for Israel, all accurate, and saying, at this point, how could anyone
possibly think that I'm anti-Israel? This has a lot to do, obviously, with the upcoming
election. The president is not vulnerable on most foreign policy questions right now.
He's obviously not vulnerable at all on questions of terrorism, after the killing of bin Laden.
Republicans believe that he is vulnerable on the Iran question, that he's not tough
enough on Iran, that he's not friendly enough to Israel. So, if you noticed, you know, in
past years, the president would be speaking a great deal about the peace process, about
the Palestinians. He's not talking about that right now. He's talking about Iran. He's talking,
you know, according to an agenda laid in part by the prime minister, as opposed to an agenda
that he has set out. So, this has a lot to do with neutralizing an issue that the White
House understands to be a possible vulnerability. GWEN IFILL: Jeff Goldberg, Jamie Fly, Jim
Dobbins, thank you all very much. JAMIE FLY: Thank you. JAMES DOBBINS: Thank you. urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
State urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags City urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
country-region urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place GWEN IFILL: For more on the growing
debate, we turn to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic magazine Normal Microsoft Office
Word GWEN IFILL: For more on the growing debate, we turn to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic
magazine Title Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8