1.
Hillary Clinton thinks – or says she thinks – that the agreement with Iran “put a lid on their nuclear weapons program and imposed intrusive inspections.” She states that “we are going to enforce it to the letter” and that the Iranians are “not playing” the US. Hence, what she is focused on is “all the other malicious activities of the Iranians — ballistic missiles, support for terrorists, being involved in Syria, Yemen, and other places, supporting Hezbollah, Hamas.”
That is from the NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum yesterday. Not a Clinton-Trump debate, but a joint appearance. As with most such appearances, the time was limited, answers were tailored to fit the format, and we still do not know how Clinton will enforce the agreement “to the letter” while focusing on the “malicious activities of the Iranians.” Clinton says that it is easier to deal with Iran “without having to worry as much about their racing for a nuclear weapon.” That is not exactly accurate: the Obama administration seems hesitant to act against Iran because of such actions' potential to disrupt the advancement of the Iran deal – and Clinton, while not as committed as Obama to the Iran deal legacy, would face a similar problem. In other words: the Iranians are playing the US by using the luring power of the deal.
2.
Neither Clinton nor Trump mentioned Israel yesterday. They also did not mention the Palestinians. That is clearly a change from the Obama era.
3.
Note that both candidates do not want to “be there.” Clinton vowed to put no troops on the ground in the Middle East. Trump opposes intervention in the Middle East and offered the following strategy: we “shouldn't be there, but if we're going to get out, take the oil. If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn't have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil.” Is that ridiculous? It is framed in a somewhat unorderly fashion, but it is actually not as farfetched as one might suspect. What Trump essentially offers here is a return to the policy of having an American-backed strongman controlling the parts of the region in which the US has a stake – today the oil is not needed to fuel American industry (the US has enough of its own). What’s needed is a way of preventing the bad guys from getting it, selling it, and feeding their radicalism on it.
Naturally – the Arab world might not be appreciative of such a strategy.
4.
You know everything there is to know about American polls and the shrinking Clinton-Trump gap, so let’s turn our attention to Israeli polls. In a recent poll, for the first time in a very long while, the Likud Party came out second, with Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid coming out first. What does this tell us? It tells us that currently Lapid is the only centrist game in town (with no one at all to his left). It tells us that there are still Israelis who appreciate a relatively mannerly politician. It tells us that Netanyahu might need to start worrying about his coalition, but not because of Lapid – Lapid cannot cause trouble by himself. He might need to worry because at least two of his senior partners, Naftali Bennet of the Jewish Home and Avigdor Lieberman of Israel Beiteinu are making gains in the polls – Bennet would get 14 seats and Lieberman 10 according to this poll. This could give one of them an incentive to initiate a crisis that would send Israel to a new round of election.
On the other hand, Lieberman just got the dream job of Defense Minister, and Bennet knows from past experience that his voters could ditch him as fast as they joined him if they suspect that a centrist or a leftist government is about to form. That’s how Netanyahu got his 30 seats in the last election.
5.
Another survey of Israelis included three questions on the Clinton-Trump race. One was unnecessary: Israelis think that Clinton will win the race – but I’m really not sure why it matters what they think about this question. Another one was awkwardly phrased: “Which of the two candidates, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, if elected, will be better from the standpoint of the Israeli government’s policy?” (in Hebrew it sounds even less comprehensive). 34% of Israelis believe that Trump “will be better from the standpoint of the Israeli government’s policy,” and 34% said Clinton. But among Israel’s Jews it was 38% for Trump and 33% for Clinton.
The third question is the only question that I find comprehensible: “And whom would you want to win the U.S. presidential elections: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?” Here the answer is clear cut: Clinton 46%, Trump 30%. Among Jews: Clinton 43%, Trump 34%.
The authors of the survey believe that the last two questions prove that “for some of the Jewish public the preferences are not solely determined by the consideration of which of the two candidates will be ‘better for the Jews.’” According to this theory, Jewish Israelis find Trump more in line with Israel’s interests but still want Clinton to win. But I think this theory is wrong: Israelis either did not understand the first of these two questions, or thought that it refers to the ability of the candidates to get along with the “government,” namely Netanyahu. They think Netanyahu will have an easier time with Trump – not that Israel will be better off with Trump. That is why they support Clinton. And, as I mentioned last week, this is the first time after several rounds of elections in which Israelis clearly prefer the Democratic candidate.