6 comments on Rex Tillerson and Israel

…the potential appointment has some in the foreign policy and pro-Israel communities concerned… (” target=”_blank”>Max Boot)

Tillerson, it seems, is a blank slate as far as Israel is concerned, with less than favorable credentials (” target=”_blank”>J Street)

1.

Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, would probably not be Israel’s first choice for US Secretary of State. And there is nothing surprising or problematic about this. Tillerson would not be Israel’s first choice, because he does not have many Israeli ties. Because he comes from the oil industry and has ties with Arab states. Because he has close ties with Russia. Because he was recommended by James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Condoleezza Rice – all former officials who have had reservations concerning certain Israeli policies.

This does not mean that Israel and Tillerson are on the way to having tense relations. Former Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister and Defense Minister Moshe Arens – at the time the ambassador in Washington – likes to tell the story of him and his colleagues in the Begin government being worried as hell over the appointment of George Schultz as Secretary of State in the Reagan administration. Prior to being nominated for State, Schultz was a Bechtel executive and president. He had ties to Arab governments. He was an oil man. He was also one of the secretaries with which official Israel got along very well. 

2.

Tillerson will be Secretary of State. It is an important job, but not as important as you might think. Ultimately, the policies are determined by the president and his team, and the secretary only has as much power as the president wants him to have. Thus, in the Obama years both secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, were on a short leash and the policies were clearly not theirs. In the Bush years, Colin Powell had little influence, and Rice was influential because of her previous role in the White House and her close ties to the president.

All of us remember secretaries who held great sway over policies (Kissinger, Rusk), and secretaries who held little sway over policies (Rogers, Vance – especially in the second half of his term). We often attribute the impact of secretaries to their own abilities, but truly for many of them it is a result of presidential circumstances and preference. A president with less experience or less interest in foreign affairs might rely more heavily on the secretary; a president with more experience, confidence, and interest will rely less on his secretary.

What will be Tillerson’s role in a Trump administration? He is surely an able candidate for the job, but Powell was able too, and he was still promptly marginalized. Trump, no doubt, has little experience as a political leader, but so does Tillerson.

The bottom line: it is an important appointment, but keep it in proportion. Tillerson serves the president, he is not in charge of America’s foreign affairs.

3.

Historically speaking, Israel has been a special case for a quite some time. Even more than other portfolios, presidents tend to handle the Israel portfolio from the White House. Clinton had direct and close ties with Yitzhak Rabin. Bush had good a rapport with Ariel Sharon and an excellent rapport with Ehud Olmert. Even Obama, whose relations with Netanyahu were hardly warm, kept the Israeli file under his own control. Naturally, the more a president does that, the less the secretary has influence over Israel policy.

Why do presidents keep the Israel file to themselves? Because of political calculations, because of the interest Congress takes in Israel, because of its special status as a very close, at times even intimate, ally. Trump might choose differently, but if he follows in the footsteps of most of his predecessors, Israel policies will not be handled by Foggy Bottom.

4.

It is not easy for all of us to get rid of old habits and beliefs such as: a secretary who has close ties with the Sunni Gulf states is not the one Israel prefers. Well – this was once true, but is it still? Think about the main issues concerning Israel: Iranian overreaching, chaos and terrorism in the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is future secretary Tillerson going to hear from his Arab friends on these issues?

On Iran he will get from them an even more alarmed version of Israel’s concerns.

On chaos and terrorism – these states will have sentiments similar to those of Israel’s: keep stability, forget about great ideologies and the desire for a better world.

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – he will get the usual complaints, but with less urgency. The Arabs have more pressing issues worrying them.

In other words: the fact that Tillerson comes with recommendation from Jim Baker does not mean that he will follow the Baker doctrine from 25 years ago. The Middle East has changed, circumstances have changed, the priorities of all countries have changed.

5.

Every administration is a battlefield. People with strong personalities and convictions, and with great ambition and egos, fight for influence, for the president’s ear, against rivals. If Tillerson is Secretary of State and John Bolton is – as reports say – Deputy Secretary, three things can happen. They can agree on most policies and have a great relationship. They can disagree on many policies and fight for influence. Or they can both have their own responsibilities for different portfolios, with each of them focusing on the things that matter most to him. For instance, Tillerson could be the one focused on American economic interests, while Bolton could be the one focused on the war against terrorism.

Will they work in harmony and agree on policies toward Israel? Iran? ISIS? The Palestinians? One thing for sure, if Bolton is Deputy Secretary (and with