The White House, like the White Paper

My weekend column (with Aluf Benn) dealt with the new American decision to hold talks on Iraq and sit at the same discussions table with representatives of Iran and Syria. You can read the complete piece here, or the shortened version here:

Nostalgia

The admiration at the measured and genial response of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes up in almost every conversation about that speech. Putin, a few weeks ago, accused the Americans of threatening global stability and security. It was a blunt, bitter address, lacking even an iota of warmth. "As an old Cold Warrior," Gates quipped the next day, choosing to respond to Putin with friendly humor, "one of yesterday's speeches almost filled me with nostalgia for a less complex time. Almost."

For anyone looking for Gates-like nostalgia, the White House's current policy is reminiscent of the period of the White Paper under the British Mandate: We will talk with the Iranians about Iraq as though they have no nuclear project, and we will fight the nuclear project as though there are no talks. On the day that Rice announced the administration's agreement to meet with the Iranians in Iraq, Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, spoke proudly of his efforts to dry up the Iranian banking system (note to the readers: Levey is in Israel now, for talks on tightening the economic boycott on Iran).

Tourism

This week, visiting Washington, Knesset Speaker (and acting president) Dalia Itzik was updated on the scandal of the minister-designate who was quickly undesignated. She was also informed of an op-ed piece by Thomas Friedman, the senior New York Times columnist, who lashed out at the "bizarre and criminal" behavior of Israeli leadership. "When the cabinet is so weak, no peace deal is likely with the Palestinians," Friedman wrote. It's hard to argue with that observation, but it probably does not describe the situation in full. An agreement would probably also be unlikely even with a stronger Israeli government.

Rice seems to know this. In her talk with Itzik, Rice explained that she is still waiting to see exactly what befalls the Palestinian Authority and what kind of unity government is established there. In any event, she said, the United States will not abandon PA leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).

Prime Minister Olmert will meet with Abbas in another two weeks, and Rice's pal, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will visit Washington to speak at the annual conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, but Rice will have been out of town. In fact, her travel itinerary is filling up rapidly. In a week and a half, South America; early April, the meeting in Iraq; and this week she promised again that she would soon return to Jerusalem, too. Chalk up a first success for the new tourism minister.

(Another update: Rice and Livni will meet after all. Livni is going to travel to Canada, and then come back for Rice.)

Money

Anyone looking for the reasons that prompted the administration to talk to Iran and Syria will not have to work very hard. The coalition the Americans created is pressing from the outside, but in the domestic arena one can take a well-paved, very American path that suits almost every situation: Follow the money. It wasn't by chance that Rice chose the arena of the announcement: the Senate Appropriations Committee. She came there with Defense Secretary Gates to solicit for the budget that will fund the continuation of the war in Iraq.

Iraq is the hub around which U.S. policy will revolve, certainly in the months ahead. Every other problem will be shunted, as far away as possible. Every obstacle, real or imagined, on the road to success in Iraq, will be neutralized. This is also what happened to the administration with regard to the talks with Iran. At first, Washington insisted that it was best to isolate Iran, and Syria, and not to allow them to gain acceptance in the international community as long as they continued to support terrorism and destabilizing groups. Afterward, it dawned on U.S. policy makers that this stubbornness was causing damage with respect to both world and domestic public opinion and supplying lethal political ammunition to Bush's rivals. It then eventuated that the price might be too high: Stubbornness encumbers, perhaps even endangers, the moves planned for Iraq.

Probabilities

In the meantime, there are no signs in Jerusalem of progress on the Syrian channel. Olmert is taking solace in the leaks from the assessment by the intelligence community, which was presented to the cabinet on Sunday, that there is "low probability" of war with Syria. This is apparently the reason that the assessment was presented to a broad, open forum and not in a confidential security cabinet discussion.

An experienced security and political observer remarked this week that it is a mistake to rely on such assessments. The problem is that life doesn't unfold according to statistical averages, and in the Middle East it's not easy to fathom leaders' intentions or the consequences of Israeli actions. Before the Lebanon war last summer, the assessment was that the probability of a war in the North was zero.