Rohani’s charm offensive poses difficult challenge for
Netanyahu
The Iranian’s sophistication coupled with America’s disdain
for confrontation begs the question: where is Ahmadinejad when we really need
him?
By Chemi Shalev | Sep. 20, 2013 | 4:49 PM |
www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.548013
Call it a charm offensive, seduction sortie, bewitchment
blitz or wooing war, one thing is certain: Iranian President Hassan Rohani is
waging an all-out public relations onslaught on American hearts and minds that
poses unprecedented new challenges for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
other Israeli policymakers.
Following initial skirmishes and reconnaissance patrols over
the past few weeks on Twitter and Facebook, Rohani has now unleashed a
preparatory salvo of moderate-sounding, peace-hugging statements on NBC and in
the Washington Post. The main thrust of his campaign will be rolled out next
week in New York, where Rohani will use his status as the star sensation of
this year’s United Nations General Assembly to launch a barrage of interviews,
speeches and public appearances, all aimed at convincing America of Iran’s
benevolent policies and benign nuclear plans.
The attention, some of it fawning, that is already being
bestowed on the so-called “moderate” Iranian president has confirmed the
widespread assumption of most analysts following Rohani’s election in August as
Iran’s 7th president: that it wouldn’t take long for Israel and other critics
of Iran to sorely miss his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
After all, for the past 8 years, Israel’s efforts to
convince the world and especially the U.S. to tackle Iran’s nuclear designs
head on relied on two main figures: the relentless Netanyahu and the equally
adamant, Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad. And with all due respect to Netanyahu’s
formidable public relations prowess, it was Ahmadinejad who served as Israel’s
number one talking point, its strategic propaganda asset, a poster boy who
self-explained Tehran’s sinister designs.
Rohani, it should already be obvious, is a different kettle
of fish altogether, a sharp and formidable foe that should not be
underestimated. He is experienced, sophisticated and wise to the ways and
wishes of Western audiences. Compared to Ahmadinejad’s deterring demeanor,
Rohani appearance seems completely benign: his resemblance to Homeland’s
likeable Mandy Patinkin has already become a viral Facebook hit.
As Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Rohani has confessed to
engaging European concerns as a cover for accelerating Tehran’s nuclear
program. His interview on NBC and his carefully crafted oped in the Washington
Post show his capacity to appeal to American audiences while trying to drive a
wedge between the U.S. and the “pressure groups” that support “troublemaker”
Israel.
Confronting Rohani after years of dealing with the coarse
and uncouth Ahmadinejad was bound to be a daunting task under any
circumstances. Disparaging knee-jerk reactions, such as the one issued on
Thursday by the Prime Minister’s Office about the Iranian president’s
“fraudulent words” along with the obligatory too-clever-by-half pun about
“spinning” the media in order to keep the centrifuges “spinning” wouldn’t have
cut it any more, even in the best of times.
And the Syria chemical weapons confrontation may have
created the worst of times, in fact, as far as making the case against Iran is
concerned.
Whatever the ultimate outcome of the deal hashed out between
Russia and the U.S. to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons, events of the past
two weeks have diluted the credibility of an American military threat against
Iran, a sine qua non, in Netanyahu’s eyes at least, to convincing Tehran to
give up its nuclear weapons program.
Obama’s decision to ask for Congressional approval for a
military attack against President Assad’s regime achieved the opposite of what
the president presumably intended: it solidified public and political
opposition to a military attack, especially in cases where there has been no
direct attack on American targets or U.S. personnel. The more the issue was
discussed, the more the public’s opposition to an attack was cemented in stone.
By the time the Russians intervened, America had effectively handed in its
badge as the world’s only policeman.
The Syria debate has changed America’s political landscape
on war and peace in ways that can’t be quantified before the dust finally
settles. The reemergence of a strong anti-war faction on the Democratic Party’s
left coupled with a widespread isolationist sentiment in the Republican party -
even if it was partly motivated by anti-Obama sentiments – has created a
political fait accompli in the form of a strong, bipartisan Congressional anti-war
caucus.
When Netanyahu addressed Congress in May 2011 and received
scores of standing ovations for his staunch anti-Iranian message, as well as
throughout the recent presidential campaign, Democrats were still loyal to
their president and Republicans were still the uber-hawkish opposition
lambasting the president for not bombing Israel’s enemies to smithereens. Other
than John McCain, everything has now changed.
And while Obama may feel indebted to Netanyahu, AIPAC and
other Jewish organizations for enlisting in his cause of persuading Congress to
support a military strike against Assad, it’s far from certain that the
American public feels the same way. Whatever the justification for lobbying on
Obama’s side – and there were a number of good reasons, including a direct,
can’t-be-refused presidential appeal – the bottom line is that the
Administration ultimately bailed and Israel and its supporters were left
holding the proverbial bag.
To catapult straightaway from pushing an unpopular proposal
to embroil the US in Syria to playing Debbie Downer on Rohani’s encouraging
flirtations is a precarious undertaking which could lend credence to hostile
claims of Israeli warmongering. It is a fine line that needs to be walked, one
that requires less sledgehammer and more finesse, a trait not usually
associated with Israeli hasbara efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment