Red Lines

I believe Steve Clemons is overreacting here:

Now Israel has gone one better and is issuing instructions to the United States on what America's red lines with Iran should be. The implication of course is that Israel will take matters into its own hands if these lines are crossed -- whether America does or not.

According to a piece that will appear in tomorrow's Haaretz, Barak Ravid writes that these red lines and instructions of Israel to the U.S. will be presented to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

1. Any dialogue must be both preceded by and accompanied by harsher sanctions against Iran, both within the framework of the UN Security Council and outside it. Otherwise, the talks are liable to be perceived by both Iran and the international community as acceptance of Iran's nuclear program.

2. Before the dialogue begins, the U.S. should formulate an action plan with Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain regarding what to do if the talks fail. Specifically, there must be an agreement that the talks' failure will prompt extremely harsh international sanctions on Iran.

3. A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a "one-time opportunity" for Tehran.

4. Timing is critical, and the U.S. should consider whether it makes sense to begin the talks before Iran's presidential election in June.

Iran's pretensions in the region are a problem in my view -- but Iran, which fears regime change efforts by the US and other of its neighbors, is responding to an "ecosystem" that many around the world have complicity in building.

Israel should be rebuffed by Hillary Clinton. She should listen to Israel's views on the region of course -- and consider proposals. But this kind of instruction manual on what red lines can be tolerated or not is pretty outrageous -- and borders on the type of irresponsibilty and consequences of what a Taiwanese declaration of independence from China would mean.

I find Clemons' argument a little bit odd here, especially since he's a rather vocal supporter of Flynt Leverett and the so-called Grand Bargain approach to settling US-Iranian differences.

I've expressed my own concerns with this approach, but for Clemons, it would seem to make sense to get the Israelis on board with discussions, as Iran's often deleterious role in the Mideast peace process would undoubtedly be a component in these negotiations. Indeed, the article in question even says as much - Israel's defense apparatus is establishing an open position on US-Iranian negotiations, yet they wish to insert their own specifications for said negotiations.

This is pretty much par for the course stuff here. If part of the discussion is going to be about creating a more positive role for the Iranians in the region, than the Israelis will need to be considered in those discussions. If the US - after reaching some sort of agreement with Tehran - hopes to measure the efficacy of their negotiations, it'll require assistance from Israel, Egypt and a few other neighboring countries to monitor and make sure that Iranian weapons aren't ending up in Gaza or elsewhere.

Israel clearly has a stake in these negotiations, as do the Gulf states surrounding Iran. The GCC outlines its stated desires for the region all the time, so why is it so egregious for Israel to do the same?

And these suggestions, by the way, are rather sensible! Maybe The United States could benefit from hearing the suggestions of a country that rebuffed the pressures to pursue their own version of a Grand Bargain; opting instead for direct, but narrow, negotiations with enemy states.