Some time between 6 pm and midnight eastern, there will be a vote in the House of Representatives that passes health care reform. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already getting rave reviews in the media for taking a dead health care package and breathing life back into it and beating and kicking the legislation through a very tough crowd in her House of Representatives.

Pelosi deserves the praise.

President Obama is said not to be really turned on to a challenge unless he is being tested and feels like he is losing. It's said -- by chroniclers like Richard Wolffe in his book Renegade: The Making of an American President -- that Obama then decides to get on his game, and change things up on his team and in his approach, and then really pushes hard.

This is exactly what President Obama did on health care -- and he too deserves huge credit.

I am waiting to see what the final package looks like when it comes to women's reproductive rights and some other issues. The kick-in periods for some important pieces of this legislation are years away. I think it is a big mistake not to have a public option out there for people as I don't see how cost containment is achieved without such an option.

But that said, I am for health care reform, not only for the merits of helping Americans deal with pre-existing condition nightmares but because of the massive opportunity costs of this legislation that distracted from so many other key problems the country is facing now.

Obama is already telling folks that he needed health care checked off to be able to move to jobs and immigration, but there's a lot that desperately needs serious attention on the foreign policy plate.

And we hope that the President will take stock pretty soon -- realize he's not doing well on foreign policy, and show the same sort of 'getting his game on' approach there as he has done on health care.

Congratulations President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and others on the White House team for what looks to be a victory tonight -- even Rahm (!).

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: I believe health care reform legislation will pass the House tonight, but I will be on a plane to Tripoli, Libya this evening and won't be able to blog it then. So, I wanted my comments up now. I will be at the AIPAC annual meeting today before the health care vote. Best, Steve Clemons

I thought that President Obama's Nowruz message to Iranians was -- like last year -- excellent. I think that this kind of public diplomacy is enormously important in reaching out for the prospects of change -- even if the Iran government is recalcitrant.

Here is a clip from the transcript:

I said, last year, that the choice for a better future was in the hands of Iran's leaders. That remains true today. Together with the international community, the United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy - we insist only that you adhere to the same responsibilities that apply to other nations. We are familiar with your grievances from the past - we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward. We know what you're against; now tell us what you're for.

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran's leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran's internal affairs. Our commitment - our responsibility - is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice - a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran's borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

Interestingly, a report has just surfaced that Neda's fiance, Caspian Makan, who became a voice and face of the opposition movement in Iran has visited Israel and may meet Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Suffice it to say that his stock value as a leader of Iran's opposition has just declined as Iran's government will be able to point to the optics of collaboration and support from Israel. This may just be one of those accidents or errors in judgment that people thrown quickly into the international spotlight experience.

I think we need to work toward a day when Persians, Arabs, Jews, and others can travel freely throughout the region without having to play a shell game about passport stamps and not fear the consequences of people of any persuasion entering any of the countries in the Middle East.

But regrettably, Israel and Iran aren't there yet -- and Caspian's trip to Israel unfortunately taints the optics -- though I don't think the substance -- of the Green Movement's legitimacy.

-- Steve Clemons

This would imply that the public declarations on both sides of the relationship being at historic lows was more John Bolton-like bluster deployed tactically to try and win some leverage rather than a real break. If someone in outer space was feeling really generous toward the Obama administration, one might even consider the tiff a sign of real strategy.

But not on this planet. What has been completely missing from President Obama's Israel-Palestine efforts is serious, deep engagement in the complex challenges there. He has an envoy, George Mitchell, who seems to be groveling for Israeli and Palestinian support.

We've seen systemic irresponsibility on both the Israel and Palestine sides of the equation for a very long time -- and it amazes me that Dennis Ross and other well-informed advisers to the President aren't making it clear that at this point, only a process that actively involves most of the responsible stakeholders in the region will move past the paralysis. That demands an expression of Presidential expectations of what a final status package might look like -- and would make clear what the US, Arab neighbors, Europe, the UN, and Russia would expect Israel and Palestine to abide by.

There has been no sign that the administration is willing to deal with the region as it is - rather than as it might fantasize about. The failure of negotiations under George Mitchell, the failure to get Israel to agree to Obama's cessation of settlement demands, the recent blow up during Biden's visit -- all of these cannot be blamed on the regular pin-up target for problems in the region -- Hamas.

Hamas has been mostly quiet despite the assassination, allegedly by the Mossad, of one of its military leaders. Hamas was negotiating directly with Netanyahu's government over a prisoner exchange, and Hamas has been a credible participant in unity talk efforts brokered by the Egyptians.

The reality behind the scenes with these negotiations is that Netanyahu doesn't want to achieve Shalit's release and secure a deal with Hamas -- both because it will empower Hamas and put him in an odd spot. The Egyptians are both brokering a unity government peace effort in Palestine with one hand and blocking it with the other.

The Egyptians, the Americans, and Netanyahu are the blocks on dealmaking in the region that might lead to a different equilibrium that could be more productive than the mess we have now.

Has the US even noticed the shift in Hamas' behavior? Are we doing anything to test the reality of this shift or to take advantage of it?

I think not as George Mitchell is still chasing a "too much, too late" strategy to shower so-called Palestinian moderates with his attention, US resources, and his 'hopes.' Mitchell also doesn't get that Israel-Palestine is a globally significant fault-line unlike Northern Ireland which could have raged a few hundred more years without having the same global consequences of an unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict.

Whether the US is going to punish Israel for its ongoing settlement misbehavior or appease it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is whether the Secretary of State expresses a sense of vision and direction for the region that rises above Israel's regrettable behavior and moves beyond the fragmentation and incompetence of the Palestinian government. All eyes and ears will be waiting for some sign that the administration has strategic depth during her speech before the annual AIPAC national policy summit on Monday.

If not, she will be reinforcing the sense much of the world has of Obama's lack of seriousness about America's geostrategic position. She will be reinforcing a global profound sense of doubt about America's ability to achieve the objectives it declares itself committed to.

And as Joe Biden warned appropriately during the campaign, President Obama will continue to be tested and tested and tested -- not just by Netanyahu but many other world players who sense lack of resolve, an absence of strategy and weakness on the US side.

It took Kennedy the Cuban Missile Crisis to finally regain his balance and restore American global credibility.

I wonder what crisis Obama will finally have to confront to restore global confidence in him -- and what risks that will entail.

This article first appeared at the Middle East issues blog, the Palestine Note.

-- Steve Clemons

As I have written on this blog before, I think that the debate surrounding H.R. 252 - a non-binding resolution approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this month that calls the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 "genocide" - is very complicated and offers no simple and easy solutions.

One's position on the issue depends in part on the lens through which the analyst is observing the question. Commemorating tragedy does not always align with the promotion of American national interests.

On balance, I am inclined to oppose the resolution for three basic reasons.

1. The United States' priority today should be to help Turkey and Armenia normalize their relationship and move forward. H.R. 252 will stoke nationalist anger in Turkey and is therefore most likely counterproductive to that goal.

2. Turkey is an extremely important ally of the United States - a country whose cooperation is vital on a range of the United States' most urgent national security challenges in the Middle East. Ominously, U.S. favorable ratings in Turkey are abysmal at a time when Turkey's democratization process is making its politicians more responsive to popular opinion than ever before.

3. We do not have a lot of friends among Muslim nations. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that positive relations with the Middle East's only Muslim democracy remain strong.

Despite my position, I want to share the European Stability Initiative (ESI)'s recent newsletter on this issue, "Turkey's Friends And The International Debate on the Armenian Genocide," which provides some useful background on the issue while arriving at a different conclusion than my own.

I found the following refutations of common Turkish fears particularly noteworthy.

On Turkish fears that the resolution could lead Armenia to make territorial claims on parts of Turkey:

The question of territorial claims is a red herring in the recognition debate. Though it has been on the agenda of a vocal nationalist minority in Armenia (and in the Diaspora) for decades, border revision has never been part of any Armenian government's policy. Armenian nationalists' claims, based on the never-ratified Treaty of Sevres, have not managed to secure any international support. Normalization of ties between Turkey and Armenia, in any case, would put them to rest once and for all. This, in fact, is exactly why some Armenian nationalists have second thoughts about establishing relations with Turkey.

On the question of reparations:

The argument that recognition, be it by countries in the EU or the US, will allow Armenians to sue the Turkish government - is widespread in Turkey. It is also false. The Armenian genocide has been officially recognized by more than 20 countries: if recognition would pave the way towards restitution, these countries' courts must surely be flooded with Armenian lawsuits? In fact, not a single genocide-related claim has successfully been made against the Turkish government anywhere in the world - this, despite genocide resolutions having been passed in countries like France, Germany and Russia....

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of property restitution makes it clear that Armenians could pursue compensation or restitution claims only if the Turkish state were to establish a legal base allowing them to do so. An International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) study in 2002 - is just as unambiguous on the issue. Although the events of 1915 had "all the elements of genocide" ICTJ concluded that "no legal, financial or territorial claim arising out of the Events could successfully be made against any individual or state under the Convention." The European Parliament recognized in an 18 June 1987 resolution "that the present Turkey cannot be held responsible for the tragedy experienced by the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and stresses that neither political nor legal or material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide."

You can read the full newsletter here.

These facts are important, but I am not convinced think that they lead to the conclusion that the United States' Congress should involve itself by passing H.R. 252.

-- Ben Katcher

Bellinger served as Condoleezza Rice's senior counsel at the Department of State and also was the senior lawyer serving at the National Security Council during Rice's tenure there. Bellinger was one of the most active opponents within the Bush administration to the torture-embracing legal culture promulgated by Cheney National Security Adviser and later Chief of Staff David Addington.

Here is the entire interview in English, but I pulled these interesting quotes:

ON RICE

. . .I think that many of the initiatives she took as Secretary of State have been continued by the Obama administration. The big policy changes were implemented on her watch, in Bush' second term. And Obama obviously has the same pragmatic and moderate approach.''

ON THE SIMILARITY OF BUSH' AND OBAMA'S TERROR POLICIES:

Q: The bottom line is that the Bush and Obama terrorism policies are very similar?

JB: Oh, absolutely. The military commissions have been maintained. The policy of renditions has been maintained. The idea of holding people indefinitely under the laws of war and without trials has been maintained. There has been no movement on the Geneva Conventions. The president has said he affirms the conventions but the president has not announced that he holds these people as prisoners of war. So all the policies that soured U.S. relations with Europe during the Bush administration have been continued. There has been more continuity than change.''

ON TRYING KSM ON A MILTARY BASE:

Q: The possibility is raised that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed will not be tried in a civilian court. How do you see that?

JB: I hope it is not true. I think the administration would prefer that not to happen. It will be an embarrassing reversal of their policies. (...) And it is hard to tell at this point where the Obama administration will come out. I think the administration is still trying to do this on a safe facility, perhaps a military base. I know that they explore both the legality and the practicality of establishing a federal court, for a one time purpose, in the middle of a military base.''

I think that John Bellinger is right that Obama's steps thus forward in managing combat detainees have been very similar to the Bush administration. This is regrettable as I think that former White House Counsel Gregory Craig was on the right track in getting GITMO shut down and a better legal process in place before Rahm Emanuel derailed his efforts.

Bellinger is also opposed to a military tribunal solution for KSM's trial -- and essentially rebukes Liz Cheney's campaign against Obama administration Department of Justice lawyers with his comments about the continuity between the Bush and Obama policies.

Interesting read.

-- Steve Clemons

The U.S. economic recovery is in serious need of a course correction.

The policy measures pursued to date have failed to produce a sustainable recovery of demand and investment, have reflated financial assets but at the expense of much needed job creation, and have done little to correct the global imbalances that helped cause the crisis.

The New America Foundation/Economic Growth and Smart Globalization Program is hosting a national economic policy forum today to discuss these issues.

The event will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

Details below.

New America Foundation National Economic Policy Forum
THE U.S. ECONOMY: PLOTTING A COURSE CORRECTION
New America Foundation -- 1899 L Street NW, 4th Floor; Washington, DC

8:30 to 9:00am - Registration & Coffee

9:00 to 9:05am - Introductory Remarks

STEVE CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation

9:05 to 9:45am
A No-Nonsense Discussion on U.S. Economic Growth and Jobs

THE HON. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND)
Chairman, Democratic Policy Committee
United States Senate

LEO HINDERY, JR.
Chairman, Economic Growth Program/Smart Globalization Initiative
New America Foundation

9:45 to 11:00am - Session 1
Jobs, Public Investment & Infrastructure: Serious vs. Non-Serious Policies

THE HON. BRUCE BRALEY (D-IA-1)
Chairman, House Populist Caucus
U.S. House of Representatives

MICHAEL LIND
Policy Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

ROBERT KUTTNER
Co-Editor, The American Prospect
Author (forthcoming), A Presidency in Peril: The Inside Story of Obama's Promise, Wall Street's Power and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future

11:00am to 12:15pm - Session 2
Wrestling with Currency, Mercantilism & State Capitalism: Time for a New Plaza Accord?

SHERLE R. SCHWENNINGER
Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

JOSEPH GAGNON
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

THE HONORABLE PAULA STERN
Chairwoman, The Stern Group
Former Chairwoman, International Trade Commission
Former Member, President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations

12:15pm - Closing Remarks

-- Ben Katcher

I always have time for entertainment/communications industry CEO Leo Hindery and Senator Byron Dorgan -- and this morning I will be with both of them at a New America Foundation forum on what is needed to chart a credible new course for the US economy.

Both have been important leaders in calling for a policy pivot in the way the Obama administration thinks about high wage job creation, strategic national investments, manufacturing competitiveness, and infrastructure development.

The event will stream live tomorrow morning starting at 9 a.m. eastern -- but I thought I'd share a video clip I did with Hindery a couple of weeks ago on the subject of green jobs -- as well as a Financial Times oped titled "America Needs to Invest in Jobs -- And Fast" that Leo Hindery co-authored with former U.S. Senator Donald Riegle.

If you are in DC, you are welcome to attend. Address information and schedule at this event link.

Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA-1), among many other interesting policy practitioners, will be with us as well at the meeting just before going to the White House for the signing of the HIRE Act.

More in a few hours.

-- Steve Clemons

What Iran Threw Away

A senior U.S. official Wednesday confirmed that the United States offered the first civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran in three decades under the terms of a deal that Iran walked away from last fall.

Daniel Poneman, Deputy Secretary of Energy, said that had Iran accepted the deal - under which it would have shipped out two thirds of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad - the U.S. would have inspected a 40-year-old reactor in Tehran to see if it was operating safely.

"We would have been well disposed to be helpful," Poneman said at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We were willing in support of IAEA efforts ... to help assure that the Tehran research reactor was safe."

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, told reporters after the meetings with Poneman in October that "one of the aspects in addition to the fuel is the control instrumentation and safety equipment of the reactor" and that "we have been informed about the readiness of the United States in a technical project with the IAEA to cooperate in this respect."

A U.S. official said on background that the United States would examine the reactor, provided to Iran in the late 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was president and the Shah ruled Iran. However, Poneman's remark was the first on the record confirmation of this.

This deal sweetener was well received by those close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and allowed him to cast the package in a positive light.

Iranians much prefer U.S. technology to Russian nuclear knowhow. Some Iranians suggested that U.S. assistance might extend to the Bushehr reactor if a deal could be struck on the LEU. Bushehr, which was begun by the Germans in the Shah's time, is now a "mess," one official told me, a "hodge-podge of technologies" that Iran is afraid to run because it might "blow up."

Ahmadinejad's numerous opponents within Iran's complex political hierarchy attacked the LEU deal as a sell-out -- in large part because he had undercut their efforts to reach a nuclear understanding with the United States in the past.

Poneman said Wednesday that the offer remained on the table. Beyond the U.S. examination of the reactor, Russia and France would further refine 1200 kilograms of Iran's low-enriched uranium and turn it into fuel rods for use in the research reactor, which produces medical isotopes for treatment of cancer and other ailments and is due to run out of fuel by the end of this year.

"It has not been formally withdrawn," Poneman said of the deal. However, he confided later that the U.S. is "not chasing Iran" and that the Iranians know who to call if they are interested in coming back to the table. Otherwise, the United States will keep moving down "the pressure track" to increase the cost to Iran of its nuclear defiance, he said.

-- Barbara Slavin

First of all, this is NOT a Rahm-related blog post.

This is a five foot long barracuda that I came within inches of swimming into with my hand a few days ago off of St. John's Island in the Caribbean.

I stopped just in time, but the toothy fish might have done a job on me had I not stopped before ramming him, or her.

Internationally popular DJ Kidd Madonny snapped this picture. I appreciate very much his allowing me to post it -- and look forward to eventually discussing barracudas with him in Amsterdam.

-- Steve Clemons

CSIS is about to hold a very valuable meeting on President Obama's foreign policy, which I am going to stream live here at The Washington Note.

The meeting is part of the "Schieffer Series at CSIS" sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and TCU's Schieffer School of Journalism.

The line up includes BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News; Anchor, CBS News' "Face the Nation", who will moderate.

Panelists are my colleague and friend STEVE COLL, President, New America Foundation; Staff Writer, The New Yorker; THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Foreign Affairs Columnist, New York Times; and DAVID IGNATIUS, Columnist and Associate Editor, Washington Post.

The meeting will run from 5:30 pm til 6:30 pm (9 minutes from now as I write) eastern time.

-- Steve Clemons

What motivates suicide bombers to sacrifice their lives and kill innocents?

That is one of the most complex and difficult questions that counter-terrorism officials have had to grapple with since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism (CPOST) - headed by University of Chicago Professor of Political Science Robert A. Pape - has assembled a comprehensive database of global suicide attacks from 1981 - 2001.

You can access that database here. Steve Clemons, fearless leader at The Washington Note and a poobah at the New America Foundation really loves Pape's site and spent a lot of his vacation last week addicted to running variable mixes through Pape's data.

Pape is also the author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

To discuss the rise of suicide terrorism and its implications for our policy in Afghanistan, the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program will host a public forum featuring Robert Pape TODAY from 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm eastern time.

Steve Clemons will moderate the event, which will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

-- Ben Katcher

The New America Foundation/American Strategy Program is hosting an event today with former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy James K. Glassman.

Glassman is now Executive Director of the George W. Bush Institute and previously served as Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He was resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for twelve years and also previously served as president of the Atlantic Monthly, publisher of the New Republic and as executive vice president of U.S.News & World Report.

Last year, Glassman explored the arena of social networking and public diplomacy at a New America Foundation forum with Glassman titled "Public Diplomacy 2.0".

He and TWN publisher and American Strategy Program director Steve Clemons will be discussing the role strategic communications can play in helping the United States in Iran.

The event will run from 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm eastern time and will live stream here at The Washington Note.

-- Andrew Lebovich

The topic was the state of play in US-Israel relations after Vice President Biden's visit and Israel's alleged "insult" during his trip with the announced approval of 1600 new settlements in East Jerusalem.

During one of my times at bat during the interesting show, I suggested that Israel's continued settlement expansion was directly helping Iran and enhancing its pretensions and goals in the region. The Washington Institute's David Schenker responded that he really didn't see a linkage between the settlements and Iran's position. He stated that Iran really wasn't all that welcome throughout the broader Middle East today and that its nuclear activities were making other Arab states nervous.

In part, he is correct about Sunni Arab antipathy towards Iran but neglected to note that officially, all of the other major Arab states are as furious about Israel's settlements creep as the Obama national security team. But that's not the issue that most caught my attention in this exchange.

Schenker, who offered some interesting insights on the show, went on to assert that while he saw no linkage between Israel's settlement expansion and a boost to Iran's regional posture, he suggested there was a linkage between US-Israel relations and getting Obama's health care reform passed.

What?? Play that again.

So, David Schenker sees no linkage between what a huge number of observers see as Israel wrecking chances for a credible two state track -- and the use of this grievance by Iran in its support of transnational Arab networks in the region, but nonetheless sees linkage between President Obama's fragile health care reform position and the state of US-Israel relations?! Schenker's view was that Obama couldn't afford to have a testy, strained relationship with Israel because it would cost him support in Congress for his health care legislation.

If he is right, then the relationship with Israel has gone too far indeed.

The truth is that I believe that Schenker is wrong on both counts.

There is a linkage between Iran's ability to compete for the position as true defender of the Islamic faith and the controversial settlements, and on the other front, there must not be a connection between the fragile coalition Obama is building to try and achieve health care reform and the state of the US-Israel relationship.

Any US Congressperson or Senator who actually explicitly withdrew or withheld support for health care reform because of loyalty first to Israel and its needs would invite serious questions about his or her patriotism and oath to the US Constitution and American people.

I support Israel's right to exist, see it as an important ally, and believe that we should support its security -- but not at the continued expense of Arab interests in the region and certainly not at the expense of core American interests at home. The interests of Arab states and Israel must be balanced and mutually pursued. Not to do so is a false choice for the U.S., but even worse would be the practice of punishing American taxpayers and their pursuit of key social reforms in favor of Israel's interests.

I enjoyed the exchange with David Schenker and others -- but whereas David has every right to assert that he does not see a linkage between settlements and Iran's interests (though I disagree), I think that his second assertion that Obama might lose the health care battle by not keeping the Israel-tilting Members of Congress was hopefully wrong-footed.

If he's accurate, then it's time for political change in Congress again -- but this time with a different filter.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: When I wrote this piece, I tried to confirm that what I heard was heard by others on the program and had general confirmation from one of the other guests on the show. However, to be fair and up front, I also wanted to run this post by David Schenker -- who was perfectly fair and civil on the program and from whom I learned some new things.

David remembers things a bit different -- and we have not yet come up with a video segment or transcript, and I think that his own views on this should also be aired here.

I appreciate his fairness and balance in how he approached my post.

Here are his comments to me today:

Dear Steve:

I was surprised that you implied that I said the crisis with Israel would cause Congressmen or Senators to explicitly withdraw support for health care reform.

I didn't say that. What I did was point out the obvious domestic political implications that Democrats could face-in addition to their current problems-in light of the very public row with Israel, especially one concerning the disposition of Jerusalem. Considerations like the mid-term elections and controversial health care legislation, I said, would likely lead the Administration to try and end the very public spat with Israel sooner rather than later.

The linkage between foreign and domestic policy considerations is well established. (Walt has written, for example, that the escalation in Afghanistan might cost Obama democratic seats in the midterms that would make it more difficult to pass domestic legislation).

Until I read your blog, I thought my comments were uncontroversial.

Best regards,

David Schenker

I appreciate David sending this correction and wanted it posted publicly. Onward and upward.

-- Steve Clemons

-- Steve Clemons

The Netanyahu Government's recent statements and posture regarding major settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the calloused disregard for the impact of these actions on Israel's relationship with the United States are a matter of serious concern.

AIPAC calls on Prime Minister Netanyahu to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the U.S. government.

The United States is Israel's closest ally in the Middle East. The foundation of the U.S-Israel relationship is rooted in Israel's fundamental strategic interest, shared democratic values, and a long-time commitment to peace in the region.

Those strategic interests, which most Israelis acknowledge and share with the U.S., extend to every facet of Israeli life and its relationship with the United States.

Unfortunately, a relationship that has generally enjoyed vast bipartisan support in Congress and among the American people is now eroding because of the Israeli government's tendency to allow short term concerns and the incrementalism of its expansion in Occupied Territories to undermine its own long term security interests, its core relations with the US, and the security and safety of American men and women deployed today in the Middle East.

The Netanyahu government should make a conscious effort to immediately move away from actions that would further undermine any prospects for Israel-Palestine peace and a two state solution. While Israel complains about unilateral deadlines directed at the Jewish State, it is time for Israel to ante up on the peace process and demonstrate that it has the maturity to demonstrate that it will cooperate with and not undermine US basic, fundamental, and strategic interests.

The escalated rhetoric of recent days reminds how much substantive work needs to be done -- and how absent the Israeli government has been -- with regard to the urgent issue of Iran's rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

Israel's provocative decision and announcement that it will greatly expand East Jerusalem settlements -- followed by revelations of tens of thousands more in process but as yet unannounce -- undermine the chances of securing normalization with Arab neighbors and only add to Iran's growing strength and powers of persuasion in the region.

We strongly urge the Netanyahu government to work closely and privately with the Obama administration, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address these issues between the two governments.

The strategic patience of the United States is being irresponsibly tested by Israel today, and it is time for all well meaning supporters of this relationship and of global stability and peace to encourage significantly more responsible behavior from the Israeli government in reigning in issues like settlement expansion that make a once seemingly unconditional relationship necessarily "conditional."

As Vice President Biden said last week in Israel,

"The cornerstone of the relationship is our absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel's security." But with this kind of commitment also come mutual responsibilities.

"Bibi, you heard me say before, progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the United States and Israel. There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security."

But Bibi, you need to fix the space that is growing -- and fix it now.

It is time for Israel to fill that gap and to join President Obama's efforts to generate a new equilibrium in the Middle East that assures Israel's interests and security and that finally provides for a viable, stable State of Palestine.

But how, as The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put it, to "neutralize the Iranian threat"?

In light of what they termed Biden's "debacle" in Israel, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett once again forcefully advocated strategic realignment and engagement with Iran's leadership, in part to get Israel to act towards pursuing peace. In the meantime, the Obama administration has continued pushing what are likely to be ineffectual sanctions on Iran, in the hopes of containing the country and its burgeoning nuclear program.

Yet as debate on Iran continues to stagnate, there is still the ever-present fear that something will snap in the Middle East, and war could break out in the event that Israel decides to act on Iran, with or without American help. It is in this context that I took another look at former Bush Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy James K. Glassman and Michael Doran's Wall Street Journal op-ed from January, arguing for a "soft-power" solution on Iran, with a combination of sanctions, support for the Green Movement, and strategic communications helping create a situation in Iran that is more favorable to the U.S. and its allies.

While I hesitate to accept this view or advocate for regime change in Iran, whether through force or soft power, Glassman's idea that the U.S. should be using all of its tools on Iran is an important one that deserves more attention.

For those interested in this debate, Glassman will be speaking at the New America Foundation Tuesday, March 16, discussing how he feels strategic communications can help the U.S. in Iran. The event will be moderated by Steve Clemons, and will be from 12:15 pm to 1:45 pm, and will also be webcast live here at The Washington Note.

-- Andrew Lebovich