[Mubarak] urged the US to be wary of what Iran says. “They are big, fat liars and justify their lies because they believe it is for a higher purpose.” He said he believes this opinion is shared by other leaders in the region.Nonetheless, he opined that no Arab state will join the US in a defense relationship visa- vis Iran out of fear of “sabotage and Iranian terrorism.” He said Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism is “well-known but I cannot say it publicly. It would create a dangerous situation.”Mubarak said that sanctions are the best hope for containing Iran, but Arab states won’t dare to endorse them.Cable from Cairo on February 9, 2009, preparing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for first meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.As for Iran, Mubarak has a visceral hatred for the Islamic Republic, referring repeatedly to Iranians as “liars,” and denouncing them for seeking to destabilize Egypt and the region. He sees the Syrians and Qataris as sycophants to Teheran and liars themselves.There is no doubt that Egypt sees Iran as its greatest long-term threat, both as it develops a nuclear capability and as it seeks to export its “Shi’ite revolution.”Cable of meeting on April 21, 2009 between Mullen and Suleiman.
Iran must “pay the price” for its actions and not be allowed to interfere in regional affairs.“If you want Egypt to cooperate with you on Iran, we will,” Suleiman added. “It would take a big burden off our shoulders.”France and the Middle EastCable from Paris on May 19, 2008, preparing president George W. Bush for a meeting with Sarkozy.Under Sarkozy, the French needling of the US and Israel has largely disappeared from the government’s daily script. The French hope that Sarkozy’s warm embrace of Israel (unprecedented over the past 50 years), and his strategic rapprochement with the US, have increased its credibility as a partner in peace-making...Sarkozy... is an unabashed admirer of Israel but keen that Palestinians are treated justly...Blaming Israel Cable from Damascus on March 10, 2010, following congressional delegation meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad.Regarding human rights, Assad stated Syria was making progress, but the congressional delegation needed to understand this issue in the larger context of Israel’s aggression in Gaza, the suffering of Palestinian refugees and terrorist attacks on Syria.Cable from Cairo on February 9, 2009, preparing Clinton for first meeting with Gheit.The Egyptians do not want to be stuck holding the Gaza bag, and must be able to point the finger of blame at Israel for the plight of the Palestinians.At the same time, Egypt has withstood scathing and widespread criticism in the Arab world for refusing to open the Rafah border crossing to supply Gaza.Syria on IranCable from Damascus on March 10, 2009, following congressional delegation meeting with Assad.Assad swiftly responded, “We’re not convinced Iran is developing nuclear weapons.”He argued Iran could not use a nuclear weapon as a deterrent because nobody believed Iran would actually use it against Israel. Assad noted an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would result in massive Palestinian casualties, which Iran would never risk.Fallout from Operation Cast LeadOctober 29, 2009 cable from Paris reporting on a French-Israeli strategic dialogue held in Paris.France has not, however, taken any “punitive” measures following the Gaza conflict, Bereyziat explained. He said that whereas other European countries stopped selling unmanned aerial vehicle parts to Israel after the conflict, the French have continued to do so.Israel intentions on IranMarch 17, 2005 cable from Tel Aviv embassy on meeting between Mossad head Meir Dagan and US Sen. Jon Corzine.In weighing the military options, the government of Israel is aware of significant differences from its successful strike against Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981, including an uncertain and dispersed target set, the presence of coalition forces in Iraq and the Gulf, Iranian capabilities to retaliate through Hizbullah and terrorism, and the changed strategic environment.Nevertheless, the GOI has shown time and again that it will act militarily if it believes that its security is threatened, and the IDF is most certainly keeping contingency plans up to date.Netanyahu on IranApril 18, 2007 cable reporting on meeting between then opposition had Binyamin Netanyahu and a congressional delegation led by Rep. Gary Ackerman.Netanyahu asserted that Israel’s mishandling of the Lebanon war had strengthened Israel’s enemies.In a meeting the day before with Egyptian President Mubarak, he [Ackerman] had asked Mubarak if military action were necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, should the strike be carried out by the US or Israel?Mubarak had responded that if it came to that, the US should do it and Israel should stay out. Netanyahu said he took Mubarak’s point, but commented that he thought the Iranian regime, or at least President Ahmadinejad, could be toppled by economic pressure, including a divestment campaign... The goal should be to encourage Ahmadinejad’s political rivals to remove him from power.If Iran was not stopped, there would be no agreement with the Palestinians, and the peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt would come under tremendous pressure. There could be no deterrence against “crazies” such as Ahmadinejad.Cable on February 16, 2009, meeting between Netanyahu and congressional delegation headed by Benjamin Cardin. Meeting took place six days after elections that brought Netanyahu back to power.Netanyahu described five threats that he saw emanating from Iranian nuclear development: a direct threat to Israel; a direct threat to other regional states; increased terrorist power under an Iranian nuclear umbrella; a Middle East nuclear arms race; and a destabilized Middle East, with Arab regimes“terrified” of Iran in his view.Netanyahu said these would not be a substitute for Palestinian negotiations, but that any result from such negotiations would be “washed away” by Iran’s attaining a nuclear bomb.Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as crazy, retrograde and fanatical, with a messianic desire to speed up a violent “end of days.” That was not the whole country, however, in his view, as he said that “75 percent of the Iranian people” oppose the regime, but that it governed with terror and would be hard to overthrow.Netanyahu on Palestinian issuesApril 18, 2007, cable on meeting between then opposition had Netanyahu and a congressional delegation.Congressman Ackerman asked Netanyahu for his views on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu said Abbas was a “nice man who means well,” but he added that Israel and the US should focus on “bringing down Hamas” through an “economic squeeze.” Netanyahu stated that a return to the 1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem was not a solution since further withdrawals would only whet the appetite of radical Islam.Ackerman asked if the Palestinians would accept peace based on the 1967 lines.Netanyahu said he would not agree to such a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible, but he added that the “right of return” was the real acid test of Arab intentions.Instead of Israel making more step-by-step concessions, Israel should insist that further concessions be linked to reciprocal steps toward peace. The Palestinians must drop the right of return and accept Israel’s right to exist. The Arab initiative did not meet this standard since it keeps the right of return open. Israel will only have a peace partner when the Palestinians drop the right of return.Asked whether Israel could accept case by case exceptions, Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return.The root of the conflict was an Arab desire to destroy Israel, which had now become part of the larger ambitions of radical Islam.Palestinian issuesCable from Tel Aviv embassy on meeting between Frances Fragos Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, and the Mossad’s Dagan on July 12, 2007.In Dagan’s personal opinion, present attempts to prop up the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will fail, and “an entirely new approach” with the Palestinians is required.Dagan expressed his personal opinion that after more than a decade of trying to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians, “nothing will be achieved.” Only Israeli military operations against Hamas in the West Bank prevent them from expanding control beyond Gaza, lamented Dagan, without which Fatah would fall within one month and Abbas would join his “mysteriously wealthy” son in Qatar.Offering what he believed to be a conservative estimate, Dagan said that $6 billion had been invested in the Palestinian Authority since 1994. “What did it accomplish, other than adding a few more people to the Fortune 500?” asked Dagan. Although he expressed his personal faith in Salam Fayyad, Dagan said that the Palestinian prime minister had no power base.Cable from Cairo on February 1, 2009, reporting on meeting between congressional delegation headed by Sen. George Voinovich and Egyptian intelligence head Suleiman.At one point in the discussion, Suleiman seemed to imply Hamas may remain in control of Gaza for more than a year; at another juncture, he told Senator Voinovich that if negotiations proceeded briskly, Hamas may be forced to cede power in Gaza in three-four months. The bottom line for Hamas, according to Suleiman, is that they must be forced to choose between remaining a resistance movement or joining the political process.They cannot have it both ways, he said.Egypt, he said, wants Hamas isolated.
Background cable from Amman on April 2, 2009.While Jordanian officials doubt dialogue with the US will convince Iran to withdraw its “tentacles,” they believe they can be severed if Iran is deprived of hot-button issues that make it a hero to many on the Arab street, such as its championing of the Palestinian cause.According to the government of Jordan analysis, Iran’s influence derives from the perception that Teheran is able to “deliver” while moderates are not.The main failure of moderates as cited by radicals is ongoing Palestinian suffering and dispossession despite an international consensus favoring a viable, independent Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel.The Foreign Ministry’s deputy director of the Arab and Middle East Affairs Department, Muwaffaq Ajlouni, put it this way:“Iran is not welcomed in the Arab world, but it is taking advantage of helpless people.”From Jordan’s perspective, the US would benefit from pressing Israel to proceed to final status negotiations, which would garner Arab support to deal with shared security concerns about Iran.Cable on February 16, 2009 meeting between Netanyahu and Cardin.There were three options, according to Netanyahu – withdrawing to the 1967 borders (that would “get terror, not peace”); doing nothing (“just as bad”); or “rapidly building a pyramid from the ground up.”Netanyahu suggested a rapid move to develop the West Bank economically, including “unclogging” bureaucratic “bottlenecks.”Pointing to what he described as strong but unpublicized trade between Haifa port and Iraq via Jordan, he suggested assembly points could be set up in the West Bank for some goods, which would create thousands of jobs. This would not be a substitute for a political settlement, according to Netanyahu, but economic prosperity would make peace possible, as occurred in Northern Ireland.Netanyahu promised that as prime minister his government would not “go back” to unilateral withdrawals, and would have a clear focus June 2, 2009, cable of meetings Defense Minister Ehud Barak had with two congressional delegations. He explained that the government of Israel had consulted with Egypt and Fatah prior to Operation Cast Lead, asking if they were willing to assume control of Gaza once Israel defeated Hamas.Not surprisingly, Barak said, it received negative answers from both.EgyptCable from Cairo on February 9, 2009, preparing Clinton for first meeting with Gheit.Overall, the Egyptians believe they did not receive fair treatment from the previous [Bush] administration and hope to see improvements [from Obama].Although the Egyptians will react well to overtures of respect and appreciation, Egypt is very often a stubborn and recalcitrant ally.In addition, Egypt’s self-perception as the “indispensable Arab state” is contingent on Egyptian effectiveness on regional issues, including Sudan, Lebanon and Iraq.Mubarak hates Hamas, and considers them the same as Egypt’s own Muslim Brotherhood, which he sees as his own most dangerous political threat. Egypt views a wellarmed and powerful Hamas as a national security threat.Cable of meetings Assistant Secretary for Political- Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro had in Israel on July 22-23 2009.Typically frank, Defense Ministry politicalmilitary chief Amos Gilad was not certain how much longer Egyptian President Mubarak would live, and questioned whether his son Gamal was ready to assume command.Gilad said the Egyptian military led by Defense Minister Tantawi continues to train and exercise as if “Israel was its only enemy.”He added that there were disturbing signs on the Egyptian streets, as women are dressed more conservatively, and that peace with Israel “is too thin, too superficial.”On Saudi Arabia, Gilad said that King Abdullah does not hate Israel, but his chief priority is the survival of the regime.Proposed Russian sale of S-300s to IranCable from Clinton to regional embassies instructing them to get local governments to lobby Russia against selling S-300 batteries to Iran.Though Russia states that the S-300 is “defensive” in nature, the mobile system could be used to support offensive operations.S-300s located on Iranian territory would have the range to engage targets well beyond Iran’s borders into Persian Gulf and Iraqi airspace, threatening US and regional partners.In particular, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have increased their political- military cooperation with Russia.These countries can legitimately make the point to Moscow that they cannot have a close political-military partnership with Russia, while Russia strengthens the hand of Iran, arguably the greatest threat to each of these nation’s security.Israel and the Gulf States Cable from Tel Aviv on March 19, 2009, reporting on meeting with Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for the Middle East Ya’acov Hadas.Hadas described Israel’s relations with the Gulf as a function of the Gulf Arabs’ fear of Iran, but also as due to the Arabs’ belief in Israeli influence in Washington.Hadas described Qatar’s shift toward the radical camp in the region as a “game” linked to Qatari rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Hadas believes Qatar is feeling pressure from Israel, Egypt and the Saudis, adding that he has been invited to visit Doha for talks about how to resume normal Qatari-Israeli ties.He added that the Qataris needed to understand that they could not expect to restore cooperative relations with Israel without agreeing to reopen the trade office.Hadas noted that while the Omanis are generally correct in their dealings with Israel, they appear not to recognize the seriousness of the threat from Iran.He said that while the UAE is increasingly hostile to Iran, it remains unclear how far they are willing to go in terms of increasing financial pressures on Teheran. Hadas said the Gulf Arabs feel that the US does not listen to them and therefore sometimes try to pass messages through Israel.It was clear from Hadas’ remarks that Israel’s channel to Saudi Arabia does not run through the Foreign Ministry.SettlementsCable of meetings Netanyahu had with two congressional delegations on May 26 and 27, 2009.Regarding settlements, Netanyahu said he wants to work with the US on the basis of the understandings reached with the Bush administration, i.e. that Israel will not build new settlements or seize more land, but if families grow, they will still have the right to build within existing settlement boundaries.Now Israel is hearing that the US wants no construction at all. Israelis consider this position to be unfair, he said. The question is whether the US is seeking a geographic or a demographic restriction on settlements.