Rumsfeld is leaving, Olmert is coming

It's this time of the week in which I offer the shortened version of my weekend (print edition) column (the one I write with my friend Aluf Benn). The full feature can be found here.

Rumsfeld

If any politician was ousted for the right reasons on Tuesday, when the Democrats claimed a big victory, it was Santorum. If the voters wanted to protest against President George Bush, Santorum was one of his biggest supporters. If they wanted to express their displeasure with the war in Iraq, Santorum was one of its last defenders. Hence, his fate was sealed, and he has no grounds for complaint about it. The next day, Rumsfeld - the guy who up to now had always disproved the rumors of his imminent replacement - followed the senator out the door. Anyway, for someone who was supposed to resign at any moment, six years as defense secretary is certainly long enough.

"So what?" Santorum said in an interview with Haaretz a week ago. "So what if Rumsfeld goes? Will the problems in Iraq be solved?"

No one really expects the insurgents in Iraq or the leaders in Iran, Syria and North Korea to change their ways because they've heard, for example, that one Democrat, Joe Sestak, edged out one Republican, Curt Weldon, in Pennsylvania's seventh district, or because Robert Gates is going to replace Donald Rumsfeld. Gates, a former CIA chief, was chosen because of his numerous virtues, not least among them the fact that his approval by the Senate is all but assured.

But this isn't the only reason for Gates' appointment: He will inject serenity and experience into the system, and will aim to bring to fruition the plan he had a part in writing, back when he participated in the Baker-Hamilton Committee that sought a new policy in Iraq. He will be the antithesis of Rumsfeld. The revolutionary is out; in comes the calm workhorse, the favorite of the old administration.

When Bush became president in 2000, everyone presumed that Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would be the responsible adults at the steering wheel. But over the years, they've turned out to be more like bratty adolescents. Gates, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, will now be outlining a different path for the president.

Olmert

As Olmert and Bush prepare to meet, officials from both sides present a similar picture of the strategic situation in the Middle East, and all are seeking to lower expectations. This is to be a brief, routine work meeting and not a repeat of Olmert's festive American expedition of six months ago. This time, neither leader has any reason to celebrate.

Iran will top the agenda. Since the war in Lebanon, a "Cold War" has developed in the Middle East between two clear blocs. On one side are the United States, Israel and the "axis of moderates" in the Arab world; on the other are Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Each side is now seeking allies, positions of influence and ways to weaken the adversary. The military option seems unlikely. A senior American diplomat figured this week that Israel does not have the military capability to attack the nuclear facilities in Iran. "The worst thing would be if you try and don't succeed," he said. He did not mention any possibility of America bombing Iran's facilities, but it's hard to see Bush taking such a risk at this point. He has enough troubles already with Iraq. And anyway, his intelligence people are telling him that there is still time for maneuvering.

The "moderate" Arab states are exploiting this Cold War to score points and gain influence. They are combining an enticement - that they will stand up to Iran - with a threat: the possibility that they will begin to develop their own nuclear technology. They are also calling for the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians to be accelerated, so as to assuage Arab public opinion. The "Arab Quartet" (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) has gained entry into the discussions of the international Quartet that is dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And meanwhile, the rulers in Riyadh and Cairo are enjoying the U.S. administration's new dependence on them. This will ensure that Bush's dream of Arab democracy will be shelved - at least with regard to those countries whose leaders are ready to cooperate with the United States.

Iraq

Just before the elections, Howard Dean said in a television interview that he was "eagerly awaiting" the report of the Baker-Hamilton Committee. As it happens, the president is awaiting this report just as tensely. If it is accepted by the Democratic Party, then no substantial disagreements on Iraq, the most burning issue of the day, are expected to arise.

The problem is that this is not the result the voters expected when they went to the polls the other day. Nearly 80 percent of them are opposed to the war and not satisfied with the president. Many will continue to make their voices heard in favor of a quick, even immediate, exit from Iraq. A crack has already opened between the Democratic Party and its voters; it may be ignored in the afterglow of the election victory, but not for long. The voters want the troops home, but the leaders want a "responsible and serious" policy - i.e., a policy that is closer to that of Bush, who refuses to cut and run. The senior American diplomat who spoke to journalists in Tel Aviv this week figured that America would stay in Iraq at least for as long as Bush is in the White House.