Assessing Netanyahu-Obama: Israel, Iran, and Palestine

Latest Post: Israel-Palestine - Obama's Two-Week Window
The Netanyahu Meeting: Obama Wins Battle, Loses War
Video and Transcript: Obama-Netanyahu News Conference

Enduring America, 16 May: "Of course, the two leaders may fudge the outcome, claiming success in an ongoing discussion without making any specific commitments on the next step in the Israeli-Palestinian process."

"Israel" prompts more spin and speculation than perhaps any other current issue --- even Afghanistan and Pakistan --- in US foreign policy. So, on the eve of and even during yesterday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, there were the differing, even contradictory revelations: Obama would force Netanyahu to accept a two-state solution with Palestine. Obama would set a deadline on "engagement" with Iran. Netanyahu would concede to "two-state" talks. Netanyahu would not shift his position.

None of this actually happened (except maybe that last one).

None of this happened because each leader knew he would not get the other to adopt his chief demand: Netanyahu would not get an American suspension of discussions with Tehran, and Obama would not get the Israelis to move beyond a limited Palestine agenda consisting of economic development and security. So the aim for each was to ensure he maintained flexibility, while giving the appearance of a friendly and productive meeting.

Let's start with the Iranian spectre. In the press briefing, Obama had the huge advantage of speaking first. With Netanyahu's publicity machine in overdrive on the "existential threat" of Tehran, the US President set out this apparent shared ground:

Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.

Let's call this "The Bogeyman Tactic", as in I can tell my kid that I will protect him from the Bogeyman because I know he doesn't exist. As yet another CIA assessment concluded this month, the US has no evidence that Iran has an active programme for the development of nuclear weapons. So Obama could put out the bold statement which was hypothetical, rather than real.

Much more important was Obama's position on future talks with Iran. Once again he began with a diversion:

We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.

The agenda in the still-private US-Iran talks, at this point, is well beyond The Bomb. Tehran wants an easing of economic sanctions; Washington wants cooperation on regional issues, with Iran offering some assistance on Afghanistan and --- in its relations with countries and parties like Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah --- giving the US some diplomatic space on the Israel-Palestine and regional issues.

The misleading headline this morning is that Obama left "all options", including military action, "on the table" (Netanyahu's words, not the US President's). Just as inaccurate is the claim that Washington has set an end-of-year deadline on the Iran talks. What Obama actually said was, "It is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we’re not going to have talk forever." Later in the briefing, he added:

We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good-faith effort to resolve differences.

From this, the press added 2 and 2 and got 5. It's wrong (although there is at least one Obama official, working against the Administration's current position, muttering about a deadline), but it's convenient for Washington. It keeps gentle pressure on Tehran while offering the President diplomatic cover. Without making any policy chance, he can let the Israelis claim that Washington recognises its concerns.

What then of Obama's priority issue, Israeli-Palestinian talks? The US President could not have been clearer on the central demand:

I have said before and I will repeat again that it is, I believe, in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security.

The ball was in his court, but Netanyahu simply ignored it. He offered, "We want to live in peace with [the Palestinians]." More substantially, he said, "We want them to govern themselves absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." But instead of uttering the word "state", he put Israel's core demands:

If...conditions are met — Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s legitimacy — its permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, security and in peace.

And, with that, Netanyahu --- who said far less than Obama to make his points --- drew his line. Obama's pointed statement that "[Jewish] settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward". No response. Obama's call for action on the "humanitarian situation in Gaza"? Netanyahu sidestepped it with, "The president described to you those rockets falling out of Gaza."

On the day-to-day scorecard of statesmanship, the President and Prime Minister each got a Win. Obama blocked the Israeli insistence of Iran First:

If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.

Netanyahu, however, ensured that Palestine First would be a far from quick and complete process. His agenda --- Israel gets recognition and guarantees on its security --- trumped any specific item put by Obama, let alone the concept of a Palestinian state.

Which, beyond any issue of the political and economic future for Palestinians, leaves only the problem that will overtake these talks --- a problem for Obama, not Netanyahu.

Read on: "Obama Wins Battle, Loses War"

Video and Transcript: David Petraeus on "Fox News Sunday"

Related Post: David Petraeus on CNN’s “State of the Union”

The centrepiece of the Obama Administration's Afghanistan-Pakistan sales pitch this weekend is not one but two appearances by General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, who showed up on "Fox News Sunday" before moving to CNN for "State of the Union".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYnfhaYTFK8[/youtube]

CHRIS WALLACE: Joining us from U.S. Central Command in Florida is General David Petraeus, who oversees American military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

And, General, welcome back to “FOX News Sunday.”

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, Chris. Thanks.

WALLACE: General, let’s start with Pakistan. The military there has launched a new offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley. Is there any sign that this is different from earlier Pakistani military campaigns, which have not been effective?

PETRAEUS: There are a number of signs of difference, actually, Chris.

First of all, the actions of the Pakistani Taliban pushing below the Swat Valley into Dir and Buner seem to have galvanized all of Pakistan, not just the president and the prime minister, but also even the opposition leaders, virtually all the elements of the political spectrum and the people, in addition to, of course, the -- the military.

So there is a degree of unanimity that there must be swift and effective action taken against the Taliban in Pakistan.

And this is reflected also, as has been announced by the Pakistani leaders, the shift of forces from the eastern part of their country faced off against India to the North-West Frontier Province areas where the fighting is already ongoing and where more presumably will be conducted.

WALLACE: But the fact is that -- and I know you have been critical of this. A lot of military experts in the past -- the Pakistani army tends to fight the war that they would fight against the Indians, with heavy artillery, with air ships -- you know, with war planes fighting.

Do -- do you have the sense that they have the counterinsurgency strategy that makes you confident that they can beat the Taliban in the Swat Valley?

PETRAEUS: Well, we did have some good conversations this past week in Washington as part of the trilateral process that you’ve reported.

And during that, it was very clear in discussions with everyone, from President Zardari through the other members of the delegation that there’s an understanding that this does have to be a whole-of- government approach -- in other words, not just the military but all the rest of the elements of government supporting the military -- so that they can reestablish basic services, repair the damage that is inevitably done by the bombardment of these areas in which the Taliban are located, and to take care of the internally displaced persons.

And there’s an enormous effort ongoing in that regard, our State Department, other countries, all trying to help the U.N., which is the agency on the front lines there, trying to take care of these refugees that are streaming out of the Swat Valley.

WALLACE: General, you reportedly told top U.S. officials recently that the next two weeks were critical to determine the survival of the Pakistani government.

If we’re talking about something as existential as that, what are the chances that the Islamic radicals could get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal?

PETRAEUS: Well, first of all, the reports of what I said were a little bit more than what I actually said behind closed doors several weeks ago, at which time I said that, in fact, the next few weeks would be very important and, to a degree, pivotal in the future for Pakistan.

And I think that that has been proven accurate. Indeed, now the Pakistani government, military, people have all responded, and certainly the next few weeks will be very important in this effort to roll back, if you will, this existential threat, a true threat to Pakistan’s very existence that has been posed by the Pakistani Taliban.

With respect to the -- the nuclear weapons and -- and sites that are controlled by Pakistan, as President Obama mentioned the other day, we have confidence in their security procedures and elements and believe that the security of those sites is adequate.

WALLACE: But -- but to press the point, if I may, because, as you say, you are talking about an existential threat from Islamic radicals, can you assure the American people and the rest of the world that the U.S. will not allow those Pakistani nuclear weapons to get into the hands of Islamic radicals?

PETRAEUS: Well, this is not a U.S. assurance that matters. This is a Pakistani assurance. And also, by the way, I should point out, Chris, this is not a U.S. fight that Pakistan is carrying out at this point in -- in this effort.

This is a Pakistani fight, a Pakistani battle, with elements that, as we’ve mentioned, threaten the very existence of the Pakistani state.

WALLACE: You also said this week that Al Qaida has reemerged in northwestern Pakistan as a centrally organized operation capable of planning attacks in other countries.

Is Al Qaida back in business, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, Al Qaida has been back in business for years, Chris. There is not an enormous revelation here. What I was merely saying was that the location of Al Qaida’s senior leadership is, indeed, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of that very rugged border region of western Pakistan just east of Afghanistan.

There’s no question that Al Qaida’s senior leadership has been there and has been in operation for years. We had to contend with its reach as it sought to facilitate the flow of foreign fighters, resources, explosives, leaders and expertise into Iraq, as you’ll recall, through Syria.

We see tentacles of Al Qaida that connect to Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, the elements Al-Shabab in Somalia, elements in north central Africa, and that strive to reach all the way, of course, into Europe and into the United States.

And of course, there were attacks a couple of years ago in the U.K. that reflected the reach of the transnational extremist elements of Al Qaida and the other movements in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

WALLACE: And -- and, General, do you believe that bin Laden and Zawahiri are still in charge of Al Qaida?

PETRAEUS: We do. Again, I don’t think anyone can give you any kind of accurate location for bin Laden or, frankly, for Zawahiri other than a general description of where that might be, but certainly, they surface periodically.

We see communications that they send out. And of course, they periodically send out videos in which they try to exhort people and to inspire individuals to carry out extremist activities.

WALLACE: General, let’s...

PETRAEUS: It’s important to note, by the way, Chris, that -- that these organizations, by the way, in the FATA have sustained some pretty significant losses over the course of the last six, eight, 10 months or so.

And there is a good deal of disruption that has taken place but, of course, that’s transitory in nature, and we’ll have to see how the security operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas -- different from, of course, the fight in the -- in the Swat and North- West Frontier Province areas go.

WALLACE: General, let’s turn to Afghanistan. It has been widely reported that as many as 147 civilians, Afghan civilians, were killed after U.S. air strikes in western Afghanistan. I know you’ve been investigating the circumstances and the responsibility for that. At this point, what do you know?

PETRAEUS: Well, in fact, I should note, first of all, that I had a very good conversation with President Karzai about this, about some statements, of course, that he’s made in recent days, and we’re going to have to work our way through this.

I would point everyone to -- and we sent you a copy, of course, of the joint press release -- again, put out by the Afghan and U.S. elements in Kabul yesterday after their initial investigating team came back, which clearly described the sequence of events that took place, with the Taliban moving into these villages, seeking to extort money from them, eventually killing three of the citizens in that area, then engaging the Afghan police who responded, which led to the governor of that province, Farah province, requesting help from the Afghan national army and coalition forces.

It was in that response that, of course, this very significant firefight broke out, battle, that ultimately resulted in the dropping of bombs which clearly killed Taliban and some civilians that it appears the Taliban forced to remain in houses from which the Taliban was engaging our forces.

Now, we are going to do a very thorough investigation of this. I’ve appointed a brigadier general with extensive experience in conventional and special operations who will go out to Afghanistan and look at it more broadly as well, to ensure that our forces are very well acquainted with in -- in carrying out the directives that General McKiernan has put out so that our tactical actions don’t undermine our strategic goals and objectives.

And that’s essentially the conversation that President Karzai and I had yesterday on this particular topic.

WALLACE: General, you also say that the Taliban is mounting a surge of its own to protect its safe havens in eastern Afghanistan. President Obama has announced that he’s going to send another 21,000 troops to the country.

Are you getting all the troops you need? And what kind of assurances are you getting from the president about his willingness to send more troops if necessary, his commitment to win in Afghanistan?

PETRAEUS: Well, I’d just state that every request for forces that -- that I’ve sent to the secretary of defense and that has gone to the president has been approved, and that carries all the requests through the course of this calendar year.

There are requests beyond that for which decisions don’t need to be made for a number of months, and I’m confident those decisions will be made at that point in time.

We have gone so far as to shift some forces that just -- we don’t have enough of in the inventory -- which, by the way, is why Secretary Gates’ budget addresses these kind of so-called enablers, the low- density, high-demand units -- to shift some of these from Iraq to Afghanistan, in fact, to ensure that -- that the infrastructure is established and that the kinds of forces that they need to enable this significant augmentation of our forces is made possible.

WALLACE: There is also growing violence in Iraq, amid signs that the Iraqi government is dropping some of the counterinsurgency tactics that you introduced into Iraq. Jobs programs in Sunni areas are -- are being ended. The Sunni “Awakening” -- these are Sunni forces that are fighting Sunni insurgents -- some of those units have not been paid for most of this year.

Are we giving back -- is the Iraqi government giving back some of the gains that we worked so hard to establish on the ground in Iraq?

PETRAEUS: Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the “Sons of Iraq,” these Sunni “Awakening” forces, have not been paid this year. There is drama and emotion with every single payday, but the vast majority of these “Sons of Iraq” have been paid during the pay periods.

There’s another one ongoing right now. Inevitably, names are lost, mixed up, or what have you. But over time, we feel quite comfortable with what the Iraqi government has done in taking care of these “Sons of Iraq” and on taking them all now onto their payroll rather than being on ours.

The level of violence, actually, has been roughly about the same for the last five or six months, which is quite significant. It has averaged between 10 and 15 attacks per day for that period, which equates to a level of violence not seen since the late summer of 2003 before the insurgency and well before the militia activities accumulated that led to, at one time, 160 attacks per day in Iraq in June of 2007. What we have seen and what is troubling, certainly, has been the incidence of sensational attacks, if you will, high-casualty-causing attacks. Particularly, we saw these in Baghdad a few weeks ago.

That did prompt a number of attacks with Iraqi conventional and special operations forces, together with our forces, to go after the reemerging networks of Al Qaida.

We should expect that Al Qaida will continue to try to reestablish itself in Iraq, even as the focus of Al Qaida’s senior leadership appears to have shifted away somewhat from support of the activities in Iraq.

WALLACE: I’ve got a couple of...

PETRAEUS: But we will see this periodically. There will be periodic upticks in that regard.

WALLACE: If I may, sir, we’ve got a couple of more questions I want to ask you, and we’re beginning to run out of time.

I want to follow up on this last point, because all U.S. combat troops are supposed to be out of Iraqi cities by the end of June of this year.

But General Odierno, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, now says that 20 percent of our combat forces are going to stay behind in Baghdad and Mosul past that deadline. Why is that, sir?

PETRAEUS: Well, what we are in the process of doing and have been doing is withdrawing the bases of our combat forces from Iraq cities and large towns. That process has been ongoing. It’s gone smoothly. We still do have some of those bases in Baghdad and Mosul, but we think that they will be out.

What General Odierno was talking about were liaison elements, adviser elements, organizations that partner with Iraqi forces in the support of them, not in the conduct of our combat operations.

So certainly, there will be a presence, but there will not be the combat forces based in those cities as we have had in the past, and that is in accordance with the security agreement.

WALLACE: Finally, General, and we have about a minute left, let’s turn, finally, to Iran.

President Obama has made several efforts to reach out to the Iranian regime. Whether it’s its nuclear program or arming our enemies in Iraq, do you see any signs on the ground that the Iranian regime is moderating its behavior?

PETRAEUS: Well, I think there’s probably been some small reduction in the assistance provided to Shia extremists in Iraq, although that continues, and again, it’s very difficult to measure because sometimes you have to have some event that precipitates something to be able to determine how much is ongoing. Beyond that, we’ll have to see as the weeks and months proceed. My deputy just accompanied Ambassador Ross in a swing through the region. There clearly -- enormous concern out there about Iranian rhetoric and actions, but we need to see how these diplomatic initiatives might be able to moderate and produce some openness and transparency in Iran, particularly with respect, of course, to its nuclear programs.

WALLACE: General Petraeus, we want to thank you for giving us a tour of all your responsibilities in that part of the world. Thank you for joining us, and please come back, sir.

PETRAEUS: Thank you, Chris.

Transcript: Pakistani President Zardari Gets Schooled by CNN (5 May)

Latest Post: Video and Transcript of Pakistan's Zardari and Afghanistan's Karzai on "Meet the Press" (10 May)

Related Post: Obama Fiddles, Afghanistan and Pakistan Burn

I'm still looking for the video of CNN's discussion with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, but apparently interviewer Wolf Blitzer combined the patronising and the surreal. Enduring America's Josh Mull commented, "Zardari is...trying to remain calm and classy while the anchors explain to him how his country works," while Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has a darkly entertaining account:

Blitzer directed him to look at a video of a CNN "iReport" from a Pakistani college student in Florida. "Turn around and you can see him," Blitzer ordered. Zardari, looking bewildered by Blitzer's arsenal of plasma screens, obeyed.

"Are you going to send your troops in," Blitzer demanded, "and clean out that area from the Taliban and al-Qaeda?" "Most definitely," Zardari promised. Blitzer was satisfied. "Mr. President," he said, "good luck."

The transcript bears out the impression that Pakistan is going straight to hell and Zardari better know his place in rescuing it. It's titled, "Nuclear Nation Could Explode".

BLITZER: One of the worst fears of the Obama administration right now, that Taliban extremists will seize control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, threatening the region, the United States, indeed the entire world.

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, he's here in Washington right now for talks with President Obama, along with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. President Zardari joined me just a short while ago here in THE SITUATION ROOM for an exclusive interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Are your nuclear weapons safe?

ASIF ALI ZARDARI, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: Definitely safe. First of all, they are in safe hands. We have a command and control system under the command of Pakistan.

And (INAUDIBLE), like you say, as the crow flies, these mountains are 60, 70 miles from Islamabad. They've always been there. And there's been fighting there before. There will be fighting there again. And there's always been an issue of people in those mountains who we've been taking on.

BLITZER: Because you know the world is worried if the Taliban or associated groups were to take over.

ZARDARI: It doesn't work like that. They can't take over.

BLITZER: Why can't they take over?

ZARDARI: They have a 700,000 army. How could they take over.

BLITZER: But aren't there elements within the army who are sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: I deny that. There aren't any sympathizers of them.

There is a mindset maybe who feel akin to the same religion, God, et cetera, et cetera. But nothing that should concern anybody where -- as far as the nuclear arsenal or other instruments of such sort.

....

BLITZER: Tom Foreman, our correspondent, is here in THE SITUATION ROOM, and he has on the map -- he is going to show us where some of the threats to your government, what some would consider to be existential threats, are located.

He's here.

ZARDARI: If I may say, they are not threats to my government. They are a threat to my security, they are a threat to my security of (INAUDIBLE), for my Army, my police, yes. They're not set to my government. My government is not going to fall because one mountain is taken by one group or the other.

BLITZER: All right. I want you to watch this and then we'll discuss -- Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Thanks, Wolf.

Let's take a look at the geography of this land and get a sense of what we're talking about here. Of course you know area, Iraq over here, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan. The area we're most interested in here is the northwestern region of Pakistan.

This has been an area where the Taliban has been strong, particularly down here, south Waziristan, north Waziristan, just across the border from Afghanistan. You know after 9/11, when the Taliban was crushed here, they retreated largely into this area, including al Qaeda leaders.

The concern for the United States and, Mr. President, presumably for your government, from what you say, has been the expansion this way toward the east, into this area. And north, up here.

Only a year ago, the limit was sort of here with influence up here. But now it's moved up further.

This is the Swat Valley, very important up here, and of course Buner we were talking about a little bit ago. All of this area along here, to some degree, can be described as contested these days, and when we zoom in tighter to Islamabad, you can actually see that distance we're talking about. If you look at the actual measurement from here down to here, it's going to be about 60 miles.

That is one big concern on the Pakistani front. But for the United States there is another concern. The more that the Taliban is able to establish firm hold in here, uncontested by the Pakistani government, for the United States the concern is this is a big base from which to wage war into Afghanistan, where President Obama says he wants to reestablish the government based in Kabul.

Which, as you know, Wolf, and Mr. President, is having a very hard time.

BLITZER: Is that a pretty accurate assessment of what's going on in those areas?

ZARDARI: No. I would say it's an accurate assessment, but exaggerated.

BLITZER: What is exaggerated?

ZARDARI: The exaggeration is that they have been there -- they have been not today...

BLITZER: The Taliban.

ZARDARI: The Taliban, they've been there historically. They are the tribes. They are the people. They are the kin.

If they have been there, the Taliban, the United States has been there for the last 10 years. And if they don't know the exact locations of individuals, then don't expect us to know.

But we have been giving them a fight. We've taken back -- we've cleaned out Bajaur, Mohmand (ph), Buner, Dir (ph), all of those areas. We've cleaned them out.

BLITZER: Because you're going in there now after you've made a cease-fire, you made a deal with these Taliban-related groups that -- has it collapsed completely?

ZARDARI: The provincial government, (INAUDIBLE), made an arrangement, an agreement with them that if they were to lay down their arms, we would talk to the reconcilables.

BLITZER: You would let them, for example, institute Sharia law?

ZARDARI: No, no, no, no, no. Not at all.

It was swift (ph) justice under the constitution of Pakistan, and as is, the constitution of Pakistan would work and the laws of the country would apply there, not Sharia law. Sharia law is already in Pakistan, all around.

BLITZER: Because right now we're seeing and hearing reports that women can't leave their homes in some of these areas unless not only they're fully covered, but unless their husband or a male takes them outside.

ZARDARI: That is their interpretation of their law. That does not mean that we adhere to it or we accept it. We do not accept that. Wherever we are, wherever the government is, that is not happening.

Whenever they come in (INAUDIBLE) -- because you must remember, this is -- hasn't been -- there's no police station in most of this area. There is no law in most of this area. It has been like...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Are you going to send your troops in? You have 600,000 or 700,000 troops.

ZARDARI: Yes, sure.

BLITZER: Are you going to send them in and clean out that area from the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZARDARI: Most definitely. Most definitely, we've cleaned out like...

BLITZER: So that cease-fire agreement is history? That's...

ZARDARI: The cease-fire agreement is not holding. But we are going to try and hold them to it because they're the reconcilables. They're supposed to fight for us.

BLITZER: Do you need American help, more drone attacks, for example, against suspected al Qaeda or Taliban targets in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I need drones to be part of my arsenal. I need that facility. I need that equipment. I need that to be my police arrangement. I need to own those...

BLITZER: Because there you can see, we have some -- if you turn around over there, you can see some pictures from those Hellfire missiles on those U.S. drones going after suspected Taliban or al Qaeda targets in your country.

Are you OK with this U.S. strategy of attacking targets inside sovereign Pakistani soil?

ZARDARI: Let's agree to disagree. What I have agreed upon is I need this. We've have asked for them -- we've asked the United States for this...

BLITZER: For the technology?

ZARDARI: Technology.

BLITZER: Have they agreed?

ZARDARI: We're still in dialogue. They haven't disagreed, but they haven't agreed.

BLITZER: Is that the most important item on your shopping list right now?

ZARDARI: It is one of the items on our shopping list.

BLITZER: So you will ask the president of the United States for these drones?

ZARDARI: I will request the president of the United States to give it a thought that if we own them, then we take out our targets rather than somebody else coming and do it for us.

BLITZER: We invited some of our viewers to submit a comment or a question because knowing you would be coming here. And we have this iReporter who is a Pakistani student studying in Melbourne, Florida, right now. He's a Fulbright scholar. And I'm going to play what he wants to ask you.

Turn around and you can see him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZEESHAN USMANI, CNN IREPORTER: Why can't we solve the problems we have created for ourselves? And why do you have to beg to the U.S. every time anything goes wrong in Pakistan?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: His name is Zeeshan Usmani. He's a student in Florida.

ZARDARI: Definitely, Zeeshan, democracy is part of the answer. We -- this is our problem, this is our situation, this is our issue. We will solve it. By bringing in democracy, by electing me as the president to Pakistan, the people of Pakistan have voted. They have said yes to democracy and no to the Talibanization of Pakistan.

So we are solving this problem, and we shall.

BLITZER: The president of the United States, at his news conference the other day, he also said this about your fears of your neighbor, India. And I'm going to play the clip for you.

Listen to President Obama.

ZARDARI: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On the military side, you're starting to see some recognition just in the last few days that the obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan has been misguided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Has your what he calls "obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan" been misguided?

ZARDARI: Democracies have never gone to war. No Pakistan democratic government has gone to war with India. We've always wanted peace. We still want to -- want peace with India. We want a commercial relationship with them.

I'm looking at the markets of India for the Pakistani -- for the industrialists of Pakistan and am hoping to do the same. I'm waiting for the elections to be over so that all of this rhetoric is over and I can start a fresh dialogue with the Indian government.

BLITZER: Because, as you know, there is concern, especially in the Congress, that of the approximately $10 billion the U.S. has provided Pakistan since 9/11, most of that money has been used to beef up your arsenal against some sort of threat from India, as opposed to going after the Taliban and al Qaeda.

ZARDARI: Let's say they've given $10 billion in 10 years, a billion nearly a year for the war effort in -- against the Taliban, and the war that is going on.

BLITZER: Just explain what that means.

ZARDARI: That money has been spent, my forces -- 125,000 forces are mobilized, they're there in the region fighting the Taliban for the last 10 years. It takes -- it is a lot of expense.

BLITZER: Do you want U.S. troops in Pakistan?

ZARDARI: I don't think the U.S. troops want to come to Pakistan.

BLITZER: But if you were to ask the United States, we need help -- maybe, I don't know if you do -- to deal with this threat, is that something you're open to?

ZARDARI: No, I'm open to the fact that we need more equipment, we need more intelligence equipment, we need support, intelligence- wise, et cetera. But not personnel. I don't think personnel are necessary. They'll be counterproductive.

BLITZER: Because the defense secretary, Robert Gates, told our Fareed Zakaria this the other day, saying he's open to listen to what you need.

Listen to Gates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There has been a reluctance on their part up to now. They don't like the idea of a significant American military footprint inside Pakistan. I understand that. And -- but we are willing to do pretty much whatever we can to help the Pakistanis in this situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. What do you think about that?

ZARDARI: I think the last statement, I'll take it on first value and go with it. I'll run with it and ask for more help.

BLITZER: Because he says, pretty much what you want you'll get. Just ask.

ZARDARI: We are asking. We've been asking for a lot of help, and it has been in the pipeline for a long time. And I'm not here to, you know, point fingers at anybody. I'm here to get more support for democracy, get more support for the war effort, and show them my record, and try and tell them, listen, one year of democracy, eight months of -- seven-and-a-half months of my presidency, we've done more than your dictator did before...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Do you have confidence in President Obama?

ZARDARI: I have confidence in the American system. I have confidence in the democracy in America. And definitely, I have hope in Obama.

BLITZER: How would you describe right now the U.S.-Pakistani relationship? ZARDARI: I think our relationships are pretty strong. I think it needs more effort. I think it needs more understanding on both our sides, and we need more interaction. But I think our relationship is pretty strong.

BLITZER: As you know, I interviewed your late wife. Benazir Bhutto, here. She was sitting in that seat, where you are right now, just before she went back to Pakistan. All of us were worried what might happened, and we know the worst-case scenario happened.

Let me ask you, how worried are you, Mr. President, about your security?

ZARDARI: I'm always - that is a very -- it's in the back of my mind. But the fact of the matter is, running doesn't solve anything.

She came, she was there, she got attention. She managed to throw out a dictator. In her spirit, under her name, under her philosophy, democracy, we took the presidency, we took the prime ministership, we made a first time woman speaker of Pakistan and Parliament.

Now, under the same philosophy, we shall defeat the Taliban, we shall defeat all the challenges, and take Pakistan into the 21st century.

BLITZER: Mr. President, good luck.

ZARDARI: Thank you.

UPDATED Video: Benjamin Netanyahu to AIPAC Policy Conference --- The Threat is Iran

Related Post: An Israeli-Syrian Peace? Biden, US Give Conflicting Signals

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke by video yesterday to the annual Policy Conference of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The six-minute presentation was a far-from-subtle pitch to identify Tehran as Public Enemy Number One, linking it to both Fascism and Soviet Communism:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A7SWQ5BAR4[/youtube]

For the first time in my lifetime --- I believe, for the first time in a century --- see Arabs and Jews see a common danger.

This wasn't always the case. In the '30s and '40s many Arabs supported another country, believing that there was their hope. In the '60s, '70s, '80s, they supported another country that was at odds with the Jewish state. But this is no longer the case.

So a common fight against Iran and its supposed attempt to develop nuclear weapons "presents great opportunities". At the same time, Netanyahu did not extend the greatest opportunity of "co-operation" with the Arab  world to a specific commitment to discussions for a two-state solution with Palestinian, limiting himself to the objective of "peace with the Palestinians". Instead, he restated his long-time line of a "political track, an economic track, a security track" with the precondition that "Palestinians must recognize a Jewish state".

Bright Idea of the Day: Attack Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons

Noah Pollak on the blog of Commentary magazine: "The current chaos could provide a pretext for a U.S. operation to seize or destroy the Pakistani arsenal."

Mr Pollak doesn't explain how the US military might fulfil his brilliant idea or, perhaps how importantly, how this would contribute to the stability of Pakistani society and its government (which, I think, is still nominally a US ally). He doesn't make any connection between this whiz-bang strategy and the US approach to minor groups like Al Qa'eda and the Taliban.

Why, however, let any of this stand in the way of blowing up nuclear weapons?