The Deadline Dilemma

Can Obama and Netanyahu agree on ground rules for Iran talks?

By Dan Ephron | Newsweek Web Exclusive

May 18, 2009 | Updated: 5:51 p.m. ET May 18, 2009

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

U.S. President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in their first meeting since Israel's election in March, told reporters in Washington they agreed on most issues, including the need to advance peace efforts with the Palestinians and, notably, the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. "We don't see closely on this, we see exactly eye to eye on this," Netanyahu said in a joint news conference with Obama at the White House.

But even before the summit, officials on both sides say, differences had emerged regarding the approach to talks with Iran—specifically whether those talks should begin with a clear deadline. The Israelis are asking how much time President Obama will allot for negotiations before acknowledging that Iran cannot be talked out of its nuclear ambitions. Netanyahu is said to be worried that Iran will drag out talks over many months while continuing to enrich uranium and racing ahead with its nuclear program. Two Israelis familiar with the thinking in Jerusalem say Netanyahu believes a progress assessment should be conducted within three months of the start of any talks, with an eye toward tightening sanctions if Iran has not clearly indicated a willingness to compromise.

Washington's view is more nuanced. A senior administration official says Obama is aware Iran might try to drag out the talks, but he also believes setting deadlines could mar efforts to remake America's relationship with Tehran after 30 years of tension. "We don't have a lot of time to let these things develop. By the same token, he [Obama] is not just going to pose an artificial timeline," the senior official told NEWSWEEK, preferring not to named because Iran was now an especially sensitive topic. Obama, speaking at the news conference with Netanyahu, said: "We will probably be engaged and have an assessment [of the prospect of a deal with Iran] by the end of the year."

The U.S. official said [the desire for clear and rapid progress must be balanced against] the need for negotiations to be conducted with the real decision maker in Iran—a reference to Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini. "We want to make sure that we have fruitful discussions with the authorities that are going to make the decisions on this, not have dilatory talks with those who can't necessarily deliver what we agree." Iran has yet to respond to Obama's invitation for talks.

The timeline dilemma isn't just a concern in U.S.-Israeli relations, either. It is similarly spelled out in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report issued earlier this month. Titled Iran: Where We Are Today, the report states that some U.S. government officials favor strict deadlines while others believe they would amount to a "recipe for failure." Those arguing against a timetable said it would "take time for the United States to assure Iran that it cannot afford the price of acquiring a nuclear arsenal and that Washington recognizes Tehran as an influential regional player," according to the report.

As if to underscore the tenuous and problematic nature of the talks, the Israeli Embassy in Washington was evacuated at the same time that Netanyahu and Obama were meeting—the result of a bomb scare.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Fernadez @ 05/23/2009 2:04:35 PM

Jews were reason for the death of Jesus There are several reasons all having to do with power politics and little to do with facts like Bible.The internal unity of the Church's Bible, which comprises the Old and New Testaments, was a central theme in the theology of the Church Fathers. Jewish are known to against all Christianity Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? as , Jesus was crucified for sedition, that is rebellion against Rome. Anyone who laid claim to the Jewish throne (there were many) got the same treatment,You how JEWS Words being Manipulated to their own advantages,caused Jesus death and But Wait second this suits us,dd the Torah bible said,Jews have shares on the Land in Middle-East,called Palestine.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: froy1100 @ 05/23/2009 6:21:42 AM

Who wrote that book? The Hasbara Department?
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Fernadez @ 05/23/2009 12:12:23 AM

The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived left the devastated country (and established Jewish communities throughout the Middle East) but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land of Israel. That is, there were always Jews and Jewish communities in Palestine, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly.

When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity (312), he took steps to elevate the status of Jerusalem and the city became a center of Christian pilgrimage. Constantine relaxed some restrictions on Jews, but renewed the prohibition on the residence of Jews in Jerusalem, permitting them to mourn for its destruction once a year, on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av.

Palestine over the next few centuries generally enjoyed peace and prosperity until it was conquered in 614 AD by the Persians. It was recovered briefly by the Byzantine Romans, but fell to the Muslim Arabs under caliph Umar by the year 640. During the Umayyad rule, the importance of Palestine as a holy place for Muslims was emphasized, but little was done to develop the region economically. Few Arabs came to Palestine; the Muslim rulers ruled Christians and Jews.

The conclusion of the book contains historical facts that establish the "denationalizing" of Eretz Yisrael. The authors ask us to remember that after Bar Kokhba's fall, "Rome and Byzantium held on to Palestine for 500 years (136 C.E. to 636 C.E.), but neither the Romans nor the Byzantines made Palestine their national homeland, an organic part of their national existence." Likewise, the book says, the Arabs and Egyptians, who reigned over Palestine for about 880 years ??? from 637 to 1517 ??? "never had organic ties to the land." During their rule, it continues, the cradle of Arab nationality remained in the great expanse of the Arab peninsula. And when it came to the Turks, who ruled from 1517 to 1917, the authors tell us that they "were even less integrated into the country than the Arabs." After a 400-year reign, Turkish culture and the Turkish language remained as foreign in Palestine as they were 400 years earlier.

"The denationalization of Eretz Yisrael resulted in a state of affairs where the country lay in ruins and desolation," the book says. "And the land waits for the Jewish people to come and repair and restore its old home."