What Is Condoleezza Rice Really, Really Up To? (UPDATED)

David Brooks thinks he knows. It's not really about Middle East peace--at least not peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. How could it be, seeing as in Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas we have the twin bookmarks of weak leadership. According to Brooks, the real target in all of this is Iran:

It’s slightly unfortunate that the peace process itself is hollow. It’s like having a wedding without a couple because you want to get the guests together for some other purpose. But that void can be filled in later. The main point is to organize the anti-Iranians around some vehicle and then reshape the strategic correlation of forces in the region.

Iran has done what decades of peace proposals have not done — brought Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Palestinians and the U.S. together. You can go to Jerusalem or to some Arab capitals and the diagnosis of the situation is the same: Iran is gaining hegemonic strength over the region and is spreading tentacles of instability all around.

Interesting idea, but even Brooks admits that there are all kinds of hurdles along the way, not least of which is the actual attempt at peace itself:

There is remarkably little substance to it so far. Even people inside the Israeli and Palestinian governments are not sure what’s actually going to be negotiated and what can realistically be achieved. Moreover, it’s not clear that either of those governments can actually deliver anything. The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, can sign deals, but it’s not clear that he controls events a block from his headquarters. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert can do the same, but his cabinet is hostile and his people are cynically disengaged.

The whole thing could backfire and leave the anti-Iranian cause in worse shape than ever. If that happens, then life will get really ugly for Rice. America’s friends in the region will try to flip Syria out of the Iranian orbit by offering it the re-conquest of Lebanon. Rice would then face a Faustian bargain — continue the struggle against Iran, but at the cost of her own principles.

Of course, one could also argue that another danger is the potential for success. How is an anti-Iranian alliance going to benefit by the inclusion of Abbas and the PA--especially with Hamas on the side of Iran? What help will Israel be able to play, since the envisioned peace would leave not just Jerusalem but the country of Israel itself divided and disillusioned.

In Brooks' scenario, Israel once again finds herself the sacrifice for the greater good of the West.

UPDATE: John Podhoretz addresses another point about this new alliance that is being brought together:

But brought them together for what?

If the threat from Iran is considered dire by every one of these nations, then it is a matter of raw national self-interest for them to act in ways to retard Iran’s forward march irrespective of the status of negotations between Israel and the Palestinians.

What, specifically, does the status of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship have to do with that urgent and pressing need? The honest answer is: Very little. Unless, that is, you accept the contention that the “moderate” states need and deserve some face-saving bribery in the form of Israeli concessions to get them to act reasonably in concert against Iran.

But if they are so worried about Iran, why would they need face-saving bribery, especially considering David’s concession that “there is remarkably little substance to [the peace process] so far.

Why would there be a need to bribe the alliance to do something that natural self-interest should make natural and automatic? Then again, natural self-interest did not keep the Arabs out of the Nazi fold during WWII either.

Technorati Tag: Israel and David Brooks and Iran and Condoleezza Rice.