The war of words between the United States and Israel gets nasty – and vulgar, too

Last week we witnessed a remarkable moment in the annals of U.S. foreign affairs. In an article for The Atlantic titled “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here,” its author, Jeffrey Goldberg, quotes a senior U.S. official as calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “a chickens—.”

That’s right: “a chickens—.”

Goldberg, a journalist who knows a juicy quote when he sees one, puts the insult right at the top of his piece:

“The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. ‘The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickens—,’ this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.”

The comment – along with other less-than-flattering descriptions of Netanyahu in the article – has caused predictable howls of protest in Israel and here in the United States. It has also led, just as predictably, to a scramble by the Obama administration to distance itself from the insult.  Secretary of State John Kerry has gone so far as to call Prime Minister Netanyahu to apologize. We can assume that Netanyahu enjoyed the conversation more than Kerry.

Leaks by nameless “officials” like those in the Goldberg piece can provide a useful means of conveying displeasure with the policies of foreign governments; under the cloak of anonymity, the source can be blunt in ways that he or she simply cannot be in public statements. But surely such comments should serve a purpose. And, just as surely, the use of insulting language distracts from whatever message the leaker intends.

The best explanation I have heard for the leak is by political scientist and foreign policy blogger Dan Drezner. He speculates that it is not actually aimed at Israel but, rather, Iran. According to Drezner’s theory, the purpose of the leak is to assure Tehran that it need not worry about an Israeli air strike against its nuclear facilities should Iran agree to a deal with the P5 plus 1[1] group or continue negotiations under an extension to the talks.

There is some evidence for Drezner’s speculation elsewhere in Goldberg’s piece. The same senior U.S official who calls the Israeli Prime Minister “a chickens—” is quoted as saying that “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars.” According to Goldberg, another senior U.S. official

“ …  agreed that Netanyahu is a ‘chickens—’ on matters related to the comatose peace process,           but added that he’s also a ‘coward’ on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the            Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on            Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal.            ‘It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately            he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own                  unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.’”

I said that Drezner’s is the best explanation I have heard.  That does not mean it is a good one. Drezner himself admits that he’s “spitballing” when it comes to his theory.

My reason for doubt: there are simply better, less inflammatory, ways of making such a point to Tehran, even if the administration opted for a leak.  A straightforward statement by an unnamed “senior administration official” that “the United States is confident that Israel will not attack Iran whatever Prime Minister Netanyahu might say” would surely suffice. The Netanyahu government and its supporters in the United States would certainly have complained. But a furor would have been avoided.

Moreover, the leak comes amid signs that that the Obama administration’s patience with the Netanyahu government — long since frayed — may have reached a breaking point. The same week as the Goldberg article, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, and National Security Advisor Rice all pointedly refused to meet visiting Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. The reason: Ya’alon’s penchant for denigrating Secretary Kerry.  Earlier this year, for instance, Ya’alon described Kerry as “messianic” and “obsessive” in his search for a settlement between Israel and Palestinians.

There is clearly no love lost between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Just as obviously, there is growing frustration within the Obama administration for what it considers the prime minister’s obstructionism when it comes to the peace process and other issues, including a possible nuclear deal with Iran. I suspect that this frustration – mentioned in Goldberg’s first paragraph — is the simplest and likeliest explanation of the leak: understandable, perhaps, but ultimately childish.