Midweekly Overview

Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 52 sec.

Why was Biden snubbing Netanyahu for a whole month?

• Lack of direct communications between Biden and Netanyahu were raising some legitimate questions/concerns.

• The two leaders finally spoke on February 17.

• But given that Israel is a close US ally, it was a fair question to ask ‘‘ why was Biden snubbing him?”.

• And yes, Jen Psaki’s unconvincing denials notwithstanding, Biden was most definitely snubbing Netanyahu.

• There was simply no good reason for two leaders not to make time for a phone call for so long.

• There is of course an additional context of similar patterns being repeated on other levels - with National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan taking his time in reaching out to his Israeli counterpart.

• So why?

• Looking at it from Biden’s perspective, there were two probable (and not mutually exclusive) motivations:

• 1. Signal to Israel that their autonomous actions (on their efforts to kill Iran Nuclear deal) will no longer be welcome.

• Even back when Biden was a VP for Obama, Netanyahu was trying very hard to prevent JCPOA from taking place.

• Most recently, Israeli actions have escalated much further.

• Biden is well aware that the November assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Fakhrizadeh was at least partly motivated by the plan to escalate US/Iran tensions and prevent return to diplomacy (another main motivator: reminding the incoming US admin that non diplomatic options were still on the table and that Israel was willing to do the dirty work).

• Back then Iran demonstrated (surprising) awareness and was quick to blame Israel only (even before conducting a sufficient investigation that would legitimately clear the US from a complicity).

• As a result, the desired (by Israel) escalation did not occur.

• Nevertheless, that was a warning for Biden that Israel was going to be independently assertive.

• So by snubbing him, Biden is sending a message to Netanyahu: fall back in line. You will no longer have a free pass under my leadership.

• 2. Damage Netanyahu’s USP in domestic elections, and possibly even cause his electoral loss - getting rid of him once and for all.

• One of the unique selling points for Netanyahu as a politician was his proximity to the White House under the Trump administration.

• That he was personally close to the president, and could get things done.

• There was of course an objective validation of this claim through Trump admin actions on Jerusalem embassy, settlements issues and alignment on Iran strategy.

• With Iran strategy on the main agenda, the relationship with WH is now more important than ever.

• Biden snubbing Netanyahu could be a calculated act to damage his reputation for proximity for the US power - thus damaging his electability.

• Indeed, it is fascinating how Netanyahu’s office (in their comments on the Biden phone call) emphasized the point that this very proximity was still in play:

• “The conversation was very friendly and warm and lasted about an hour. The two leaders noted their longstanding personal ties and said they would work together to further strengthen the strong relations between Israel and the United States”.

• Having said all of that, was it all worth it? even from Biden’s perspective?

• Well, if Netanyahu loses March 23 elections, then for Biden it will be a clear win!

• He can then establish new working relationship with the new PM and put everything behind.

• If however Netanyahu survives, Biden will need to pivot back to the classic relationship (conspicuous alignment) asap.

• Anything less, would damage the US leverage on the Iran negotiations.

• The last thing US needs, is to signal a worsening relationship with a key regional ally.

Blinken forgets he is not a political scientist.

• Antony Blinken gave an interview to NPR.

• It was not that great, nothing too interesting. Don’t waste your time reading it.

• But certain comments were peculiar.

• Like this:

• ‘‘There is no doubt that our ability to wave the banner of democracy and human rights to some extent has been tarnished by recent events, especially the egregious attack on the Capitol on January 6.’’

• Last time I checked, democracy promotion was a major State Department goal (and an effective tool for recruiting countries into a US dominated world order).

• As a Secretary of State, Antony Blinken is a practitioner of diplomacy.

• Although his comments may be factually correct and have strong basis, it is not his job to educate the public about the importance of domestic institutions.

• And neither is he a political risk consultant, providing a dispassionate analysis of US diplomatic power to a client.

• Let journalists, pundits, political scientists.. elected politicians comment on this issue - informing/educating the general public / constituents.

• If your role is to secure maximum leverage in any negotiation (representing the US), you don’t readily declare (to the whole world) that your abilities may be hampered.

• What is there to stop authoritarian governments to engage in whataboutism on steroids? now that Blinken himself is saying this?

• Chinese propaganda has long been based on precisely this - that with their dysfunctional institutions, it is not for the western states to educate them on human rights or political institutions.

• Now they can quote Blinken himself - great!

• Can you imagine any proper practitioner of realpolitik saying anything remotely similar?

• For example, can you imagine Russian FM Lavrov declaring that ‘‘ Russia’s ability to contain malicious interference resulting in western color revolutions in the neighboring allied states has been hampered - now that such attempt is taking place in our own country”.

• Not in a million years..

• If boisterous arrogance is one extreme of diplomacy, then unnecessary and over the top humility is another.

• If anything, Blinken should (if the topic ever comes up in press conferences with foreign diplomats) emphasize the resilience of US political institutions - how the peaceful protests were tolerated, and that all others that engaged in the Capitol breach were promptly arrested and charged.

• That US is perfectly capable of tolerating vigorous dissent whilst maintaining and enforcing law and order..

NSC needs a special subset under its Public Affairs division.

• To specifically deal with billionaires and celebrities that have an outsized impact on foreign policy.

• Consider this: Elon Musk invited Vladimir Putin to join the new social media platform, ‘‘clubhouse’’.

• Kremlin responded that the offer was ‘‘interesting’’.

• Now, Elon Musk likes to troll and bring levity into many serious issues.

• But in this particular case, his actions are damaging to the US Foreign Policy.

• After all, Putin is a murderous corrupt dictator that interfered in US elections, and damaged its institutions with cyber attacks.

• At the time when Biden tries to rally public support in favor of a tougher Russia policy using visceral declarations of no longer ‘‘rolling over’’, Elon Musk’s invitation normalizes Putin’s image.

• Musk has millions of social media followers/fans - especially amongst younger generation.

• His clubhouse invitation launders Putin’s reputation at least to some extent.

• Public should not forget that Putin’s regime murders political opponents, and that they are exceptionally adversarial towards the US.

• His name should be associated with ‘‘ poisoning”, ‘‘hacking’’ and ‘‘corruption fueled palace’’ not Elon Musk and Clubhouse.

• What next? What if he accepts the invitation? What, they are going to invite him into rooms?

• How long before he gets invited on the Joe Rogan podcast?

• Things are different these days. Even just 15-20 years ago, billionaires and celebrities did not have this level of public influence.

• National Security Council must have a dedicated team within their Public Affairs department that proactively reaches out to educate/brief important players in public life.

• They don’t need to be converted into informal US diplomats.

• Mere omission of damaging actions would suffice.

Kremlin resorts to preventative tactics via facial recognition tech.

• Authoritarian regimes have always feared a large uncontrollable/unpredictable crowd.

• As French scientist Gustav Le Bon once asserted, the crowds form their own psychology and dynamic.

• The key factor that enables this dynamic is the luxury of remaining anonymous.

• More recently, social psychologists have confirmed (what Le Bon asserted back in the 19th century) that with opportunity to remain anonymous, crowds of even normally law-abiding citizens, can turn extremely violent in the matter of minutes.

• With recent huge protests happening in Russia, Kremlin decided to prevent such crowds from being formed in the first place.

• Using facial recognition cameras, Russian police has detained hundreds of protestors before and after the demonstrations.

• The news (as intended) have spread quickly. Protestors are now informed that they would not remain anonymous were they to defy Kremlin.

• This is a worrying dynamic for team Navalny.

• In my previous cables, I emphasized the importance of spontaneous (even if planned) flash mob style protests.

• This suggestion was originally intended to maintain focus on the protests, and prevent the dwindling momentum.

• Yet these flashmobs could also serve as models for avoiding the facial recognition aided ‘‘prophylactic conversations with the police’’ that precede the large pre-planned protests.

• It may be a good idea to stock on some V for Vendetta masks as well.

• As Kremlin adapts to the new reality, so too must the protestors.