Connecting the Feckless Foreign Policy Dots

There are no coincidences in politics. There is only calculation, and few administrations have been as calculating as this one as we head into the 2012 presidential campaign. Moreover, nowhere has that calculation been as circumspect as this president's treatment of Israel, or its reticence in doing what is necessary to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It's time to connect some dots that need connecting.

We begin with last Wednesday's speech by Howard Gutman, the Obama administration's ambassador to Belgium. Speaking before an audience at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU), Gutman warned the audience that he was apologizing in advance, if what he had to say might not be to their liking. It wasn't. Gutman explained that there were two types of anti-Semitism. The first type is "traditional," which one assumes is the "good old fashioned kind," in all its "Jews descended from apes and pigs" and "drink the blood of Muslims" glory. That kind of anti-Semitism should be condemned, Gutman contended. On the other hand, a distinction should be made between that kind of anti-Semitism and the anti-Semitism that arises from the ongoing conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians. A peace treaty between the two entities would significantly diminish that kind of anti-Semitism, according to Gutman. Previous to his speech, but obviously used as a rationale for it, Gutman showed a video of his appearance at a Muslim school in Brussels. He was greeted applause, which he contended was the kind of reception a Jew who supports the president's policy of "openness" to Islam could expect to receive. The audience, comprised of Jewish lawyers from across Europe, was visibly stunned. The next speaker up, German attorney Nathan Gelbar offered a scathing rebuttal:

---

"The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the 'Anti-Zionist' or, even more sophisticated, the so-called 'Israel critic,'" said Gelbar. "The 'Israel critic' will never state 'Jews go home,' but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world, but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region. There is no other country, no other people on this planet the 'Israel critic' would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel."

Why is a hack like Howard Gutman an ambassador in the first place? Perhaps being a major fundraiser for president Obama's 2008 election campaign was a contributing factor. Gutman was a campaign bundler who put together $500,000, including a personal contribution of $2300. He was nominated as the ambassador to Belgium by the president a year later. On Sunday, both White House Speaker Tommy Vietor and Gutman himself were in damage-control mode. "We condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms and believe there is never any justification for prejudice against the Jewish people or Israel," said Vietor. "I strongly condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. I deeply regret if my comments were taken the wrong way," said Gutman. "My own personal history and that of my family is testimony to the salience of this issue and my continued commitment to combatting anti-Semitism." Next up, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Last Friday, Panetta, like Gutman, underscored the Obama administration's unsubtle contention that the chief impediment to peace in the Middle East is Israel. According to Panetta, "Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability — countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan. This is not impossible. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them." With respect to peace talks, it was Panetta's contention that Israel should "Just get to the damned table." Let's review why those fences are broken. It was Turkey who engineered the 2010 flotilla seeking to break the Gaza blockade. Eight Turks and one Turkish-American were killed when flotilla flagship, Mavi Marmara, was boarded by Israeli commandos. Turkey was incensed by Israel's refusal to apologize for the incident, and a U.N. report calling the blockade legal. As for Egypt, who, exactly, should Israel be mending fences with? It was the Obama administration that stood aside and allowed long-time U.S. ally — and Egyptian/Israeli treaty-maintainer — Hosni Mubarak to fall. Who took his place? In the first round of elections since Mubarak's ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood's Justice and Peace Party won 40 percent of the vote, and the Salafist party al-Nour came in second, with 20 percent of the tally. Writer Mark Steyn illuminates the reality. "In the so-called Facebook Revolution, two-thirds of the Arab world's largest nation is voting for the hard, cruel, bigoted, misogynistic song of sharia." As for Jordan, it was King Abdullah II who last May praised the reconciliation of Fatah and Hamas, and promised to help them in "confronting Israeli unilateral measures," with respect to Jerusalem. That would be the same Hamas still considered a terrorist organization by the United States, one whose charter still calls for the annihilation of Israel. Those are the "fences" Mr. Panetta contends must be mended. By Israel, no less. Yet it is with respect to Iran that the administration's true fecklessness is revealed. Mr. Paentta offered the typical bromides. "No greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the Middle East than a nuclear-armed Iran," he said, adding that Obama has not ruled out military force with respect to that threat. Then came the hedge. "We have to be careful about the unintended consequences" of an Israeli or U.S. attack. Unintended consequences of an attack? What Mr. Panetta tellingly leaves out of the equation is the step taken by Britain in the latest rounds of sanctions against the world's most formidable terror threat. It was a step that undoubtedly precipitated the attacks on their embassies last week by government-endorsed thugs masquerading as students, despite Vice President Joe Biden's stunningly naive statement that there was "no indication" the attacks were orchestrated by the regime. What was the step Britain took? It was the first and only nation so far to completely sever its ties with the Iranian Central Bank. Why hasn't the United States done the same? The administration claims the move, which calls for freezing US-based assets of any financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank, "could shatter a growing but fragile global consensus" and drive oil prices substantially higher, "inadvertently lining Iran's pockets." How well did that argument resonate with the Senate? They voted 100-0 to cut off Iran's Central Bank from the global financing system. And one of the bill's co-sponsors, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), revealed the flaw in Leon Panetta's contention. "This is the maximum opportunity to have a peaceful diplomacy tool to stop Iran's march to nuclear weapons," said Menendez. Yet the bill still contains an out for the president if such sanctions disrupt global oil supplies, or conflict with America's national security interests. Reality check? Saudi Arabia has already indicated a "great interest" in picking up any slack engendered by blocking Iran's oil exports. Their spare capacity of 4 million barrels of oil produced per day, could more than offset Iran's exports, currently totaling only 2.5 million barrels per day. So why the hesitation on the part of the administration? Because Mr. Obama has an election to win in 2012, and anything that would even hint at another economic disruption, even one that could conceivably force regime change in Iran, will be met with the highest level of skepticism. That skepticism includes another calculated, election-campaign dynamic. In order to maintain his bona fides with his environmentalist constituency, the president ordered yet another environmental review of the proposed Keystone KL oil pipeline project. It would delay any decision about the $7 billion effort until after the 2012 election. How disingenuous is the additional eighteen months? "The Keystone pipeline has already been held up for more than three years, despite being deemed environmentally sound," said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH). In other words, the president is willing to delay any effort to improve America's level of oil independence, even as it urges caution in putting the hammer down on Iran. That may benefit the president. But it is a policy completely at cross-purposes with America's national security interests. Interests that should prioritize weaning ourselves off oil imports from hostile nations as quickly as possible. Those are the latest dots all that must be connected to an Obama administration purporting itself to be a tireless supporter of Israel, and one determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, no matter what it takes. There is time to rectify all of the above: Howard Gutman can be fired, a concerted effort can be undertaken to put the onus on peace in the Middle East exactly where it belongs, and a forceful confrontation of Iran that could engender regime change without all-out military action can be initiated — -even as we improve our domestic oil capacity. None of it is likely to occur. And perhaps the only thing more likely than that prediction is the fact that Jewish American liberals will continue to support the most anti-Israeli administration since the one headed by Jimmy Carter, the president who authored "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."