An understanding ally?

In a special interview with the ‘Post’ earlier this month, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro clarifies his country’s position on Syria and Iran.

By BEN CASPIT
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro 521 (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro 521
(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)
Do you have any idea how or when the war in Syria will end? US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro responds:
Our stance on this issue is not so different from Israel’s. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad has lost his legitimacy.
Syria would be a better place if he were to leave, so that the Syrian people could be free to rebuild their country to be more democratic and transparent. It will not be easy. There is a wide spectrum of opposition groups in Syria, some of which are legitimate and are receiving our help. Some of them are very difficult to work with, and we even consider some of them terrorist organizations, so it is hard to know when a new regime will take control over Syria. It could take a while. It’s going to be very difficult and no one can really gauge now what the outcome will be.
In essence, what [US President Barack] Obama is saying to Assad is that he can kill 100,000 citizens using conventional weapons, but he’s not allowed to kill 1,000 with gas. Isn’t this a bit hypocritical?
For two years we’ve been saying that Assad has lost his legitimacy as a result of the extreme violence he has been using against his own people. Obama called for Assad to relinquish power long ago.
The US has been providing significant support for the legitimate opposition factions in an effort to strengthen their ability to defend themselves and the Syrian people against the Assad regime’s violence.
So, it’s not that we failed to identify the brutality of Assad’s regime before he used chemical weapons. Nonetheless, what happened there on August 21 violated international law in a new way.
Chemical weapons, which are considered weapons of mass destruction, were used against Syrian citizens on a wide scale. Granted, this is not the first time such weapons were used in Syria. But it was the first time they were used to this extent and over such a large geographical area, which resulted in a huge number of casualties. This was a violation of international standards to a much greater extent.
The president knows that this action demands an international response.
Obama believes that the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians constitutes the breaking of the barrier which threatens American national interests, and not just of our allies in the region – Israel, Jordan and Turkey. In different circumstances, these weapons could reach other places. We cannot let this happen, and this is what the president is dealing with at the moment.How is the American administration reacting to actions taken by Russia, which is intensifying its support of Assad instead of reducing it? It seems like Russia is acting like it just wants to harm the US.We definitely have significant disagreements with Russia regarding Syria.
We do not agree with the steps they are currently taking in support of the Assad regime and with their continued supply of advanced weapons. We believe that this is exacerbating the situation and making it more dangerous, which allows Assad to continue harming his people. This reflects our position in the UN Security Council, which is not capable of properly condemning events in Syria due to Russia’s veto power.
I believe that the Russians think that these actions serve their interests, but we believe that they are mistaken and that these actions do not serve their interests. As the war intensifies, there is greater and greater instability in fuel prices, extremism and bloodshed, and I believe that these things are not in anyone’s best interests.Do you share the Israeli assessment that the chance that Assad will attack Israel is extremely low?
I believe that the chance of such an attack is between low and very low.
Assad’s goal is to protect his regime, to stay alive and to preserve what’s left of his authority. He does not control a majority of the country, but he is intent on retaining control over the areas he does. The Israeli leadership has made it perfectly clear that if Assad tries to harm Israel, he will be seriously jeopardizing his chance of preserving what’s important to him. I believe that this is why the chance that Assad will attack Israel is low; however, it is impossible to rule out an attack completely, so we should all be prepared for every scenario.
Let’s talk a little bit about Iran now. Recently, the Revolutionary Guards commander said that if Syria is attacked, Israel will be destroyed. Do you see a connection between what is happening now in Syria and the greater Iranian problem?
Iran supports the Syrian regime. Iran does not have many allies of any sort left in the world. Syria is one its last allies and this is helping them preserve their relationship with Hezbollah, which is an active participant in the war in Syria.
Iran is a strong and significant player in the region. I’m not sure there’s a connection between the Syrian conflict and the Iranian nuclear issue.
Our stance on the Iranian issue has been consistent since well before the Syrian conflict arose. There is no direct connection. The president made it clear on a number of occasions that he is determined to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear capability, and that the US will do everything necessary to prevent this from happening. We have constructed an extensive system of sanctions that has been causing great damage to the Iranian economy and has been making it extremely difficult for Iran to engage in routine trade. These sanctions are having a vast impact on the Iranian people and their political activity.
Just as we just witnessed in their most recent election?
Yes, the international community has remained unified around this issue.
Our policy has been to insist that Iran follow internationally accepted norms for nuclear activity and prove that it’s not trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
As of today, they have failed to provide such proof. We are giving the new Iranian president a little bit more time.
We hope that over the next few weeks we will know if there has been any change and if there is any reason to pursue these talks. The bottom line has been and remains clear: Iran will not achieve nuclear weapons, and the US will be the one to make sure of this.Our fear is that the US will be fooled by a new ‘reformist’ president, and that the ayatollahs will therefore be able to continue secretly working to build a nuclear bomb.
We are not influenced by what an Iranian president looks like. We look at what’s actually happening on the ground. This was true when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power, and it’s still true now with Hassan Rouhani. As talks continue, we will need to decipher whether the new president has had any effect on the Iranians’ approach. We did not notice any significant changes during the latest round of elections.
We’ll see if this changes.
In the meantime, sanctions are being carried out in full force. Last month, a new set of sanctions came into effect.
We still have the same exact list of demands and it will not change in the future.
Soon we will know if Iran is interested in cooperating. If it is not, we will have to explore other options.
At this point, are you saying that all of the options are still on the table?
They are indeed. They are available for the president to pursue at any point if he decides that they are necessary. Our military has assured us that this is the situation, just as it has verified the options for Syria. I know the president well, and when he says something he means it. He promised that there would be an appropriate response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and he will make sure that Iran does not achieve nuclear capability, using every means available.To what extent do the American and Israeli leaders and their intelligence officials coordinate with each other?
There is no precedent for the intensity and depth of cooperation between our leaders, our troops and our intelligence officers. This has allowed us to be almost fully coordinated with each other with respect to all Iran-related issues.
The intelligence information from both sides is identical. Both countries fully understand the status of the Iranian nuclear program at any given moment.
They are fully in sync regarding their understanding of the Iranian threat and why it is not acceptable for a regime that calls for the destruction of Israel, threatens its neighbors and finances terrorist organizations armed with nuclear weapons.Both the intelligence and understanding are identical. But there is still the question of whether Israel and the US both have the same idea with respect to timing.
Our approach is to first try diplomacy and sanctions. Both Israel and the US believe in prevention and not in containment.
We don’t want to wait until Iran has a nuclear bomb and then deal with the situation, but to prevent them from getting there in the first place. Both sides believe that all of the options should be on the table, although Israel is a sovereign country and therefore has the right to make its own decisions when it comes to its security. And Israel will decide on its own how it wants to proceed, just as it has throughout its history.
Of course, our commitment to Israel’s security is unequivocal and we are always ready to deal with any threat no matter what the circumstances are. We will always support Israel and its ability to protect itself. It’s true that we have slightly different views regarding timing, as a result of our different locations on the globe and our varying capabilities, but I think that the talks between our leaders – both face-to-ace, as well as by phone – which take place very often, give me great confidence that we will continue to stay coordinated.
What about Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s personal relationship? It’s been described as pretty icy.
Their relationship has always been much better than it seems like from the outside. I’ve been present at dozens of meetings between the two, which have always been serious and productive. This doesn’t mean that they have always been in full agreement with each other, and there have been cases where the disagreement became more public than they would have wanted.
I think that Obama’s most recent visit to Israel this past March gave their relationship a significant boost. It was a historic visit by any measure and the president used it to connect with the Israeli people, to speak with them openly, to visit significant sites and to learn about Jewish and Israeli heritage. During the three-day visit, they proved that they are capable of spending many long hours together.
This was so much more time than they usually spend with each other on a typical visit to Washington or the UN. The president didn’t just meet with the prime minister; he met his entire family in their home, in a relaxed atmosphere. This helped their personal relationship greatly. I mean, they are human.
Do they often speak on the phone?
Yes. They have been speaking regularly since the president’s visit, including over the last few days.
Is the US still concerned that Israel might act alone in Iran?
This is a hypothetical and speculative question.
We have the same goal and we are committed to achieving the same results. We agree about what tools are required to reach this goal, and which methods are preferable. There is a very high degree of cooperation and trust between us, and I believe that this will be maintained in the future.Has Netanyahu passed the point of no return on the Palestinian issue? Do you believe that he really and truly wants to reach an agreement with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas?
Obama proved during his visit here that he is committed to peace.
US Secretary of State John Kerry used the Obama speech in Israel as a way to jumpstart his efforts in the region. Since then, he’s visited the region six times and has spent numerous hours with Netanyahu and Abbas, in addition to all of the phone conversations he has held with them. Kerry has found that both Netanyahu and Abbas are extremely serious about their intentions to restart negotiations and to ensure they are successful.
It’s been an incredible experience working with the two of them over the last few months. Both of them have had to make some very unpopular decisions in order to get back to the negotiating table.
This required courage and a readiness to stand firm despite the harsh criticism.
I think Netanyahu performed well. When I listen to him, I understand where he’s coming from.
He wants to ensure that Israel will remain a secure, democratic country. It will be even more secure and democratic if the two-state solution is implemented.
He wants to make sure that Israel will continue to be a Jewish state and not turn into a bi-national state. This shows me that he is a very serious leader, and we feel that we need to work very closely together to reach the results we anticipate.And yet, the gap between the sides that needs to be bridged in order to reach a permanent agreement is so large.
Well, it won’t happen automatically. We still have many difficult decisions to make. We are aware of the disagreements. But both sides have agreed to put all the issues on the table and to reach a permanent agreement within nine months. They have the backing of the president and the secretary of state. They have the very experienced and dedicated envoy, ambassador Martin Indyk. There are the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are very invested in the process and who are intensifying their support of it. They want it to succeed and to avoid paying the price of failure. The Arab League and the international community support the process.
We are preparing an economic plan that will help create growth in the Palestinian Authority, and talks are being held between IDF officials and [US special envoy] Gen. John Allen, so that Israel’s security needs will be met if an agreement is reached. All of this does not guarantee that we’ll see the result we’re hoping for, but it does indicate the level of seriousness of both sides. It is important to us that the people on both sides understand that we have a unique opportunity here, and that we must give it a chance.
Are you aware of the harsh criticism that Israel is directing towards the US, since you demanded that we release loathsome murderers who slaughtered women, children and the elderly, while the US refuses to release convicted Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard, who has been sitting in prison for nearly 30 years even though he did not hurt or kill anyone?
We know that this was a very difficult decision, and that it has been very painful for Israelis. Netanyahu had to muster up quite a bit of political courage. Israel made this decision because it understands that negotiations serve Israel’s security interests.
This was an understanding that enabled the talks to get off the ground. But this doesn’t make the decision any less painful.Was Kerry insulted by the blunt letter he received from MK Ayelet Shaked on this issue? The language she used was quite harsh.
I don’t think that he responded to it directly. John Kerry has been in politics for a long time and has been called lots of different names. I think that there were a few inaccuracies in MK Shaked’s letter about the US’s role in the decision to release prisoners.
People say all sorts of things. At the end of the day, we felt that this was a decision made by the Israeli government. In some ways, because the decision was so difficult, this has made the decision even more significant – since as a result, the talks will be able to resume.