Along with a carrot -- hinting at future flexibility, repeating his "future painful concessions" mantra -- Sharon is also wielding a stick. A seasoned master of power politics, Sharon is playing on Bush's fears that Israel will get involved in the Iraqi war and is using that fear to extract concessions from the president. The administration could not afford to ignore Sharon's repeated warning to "use Israel's right to self-defense" if attacked by Iraq, considering his record. In 1991 the U.S. prevented Israel from retaliating for Iraqi missile attacks, but both sides were taken by surprise and the policy was shaped on the fly. This time around, the Americans were prepared. They tried to defuse the problem by promising Israel that the U.S. would make it a high priority to deploy troops and resources to prevent missile launches from western Iraq. An American military team visited Israel earlier this month to devise operational coordinating procedures. The same "stay out" message was given to a high-level Israeli defense team that came to Washington.

One sensitive point remains unresolved: how the two sides will react if Iraq uses a chemical or biological weapon against Israel. Senior Israeli officials expect some kind of "nonconventional umbrella" from Bush, but said that in the worst-case scenario "we have the means to respond." In any case, they promise to coordinate the Israeli plan with American forces, to avoid friendly-fire casualties.

Sharon knows he must stay out of Iraq. His problem lies closer to home, on the Palestinian front. Knowing all too well that the Americans want him to stay calm there as well, Sharon has been warning that the Palestinians or the Lebanese Hezbollah might seize the opportunity of an Iraq war to launch a new wave of suicide attacks, or even a "mega-terror" provocation: If Israel's hands are tied by Washington, they would fear no retaliation. Responding to American concerns, Israel has grudgingly allowed construction to proceed on a Lebanese water facility across the border, built to pump water from one of the Jordan River tributaries. The U.S. has begun a mediation effort and apparently persuaded the Lebanese to limit the pumping.

As if to justify Sharon's warnings, Palestinians launched a new wave of terror attacks. Last week, a suicide bomber exploded on a bus, but the driver caught him and only one passenger was killed. The next day, on Friday night, another bomber was intercepted on the Tel Aviv beach promenade, near the back gate of the American Embassy (and about 150 yards from this reporter's home). The cafe's security guard, a new immigrant from Turkmenistan, caught the bomber with help from the embassy guards.

Before he travels abroad, Sharon dispatches his intelligence chiefs to brief their counterparts and supply incriminating information against Arafat's Palestinian Authority. This time, Security Service (Shabak) chief Avi Dichter came to Washington and met National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and senior intelligence officials. He spoke harshly against the P.A., blaming it for letting the Islamic terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad dictate its future with their attacks. Sharon warned the administration that if the terror attacks continue, Israel would begin a massive reoccupation offensive in Gaza, just as it did in the West Bank. The Israeli propaganda machine released documents and other evidence purporting to show Iraqi involvement in Palestinian affairs, trying to tie Saddam to Arafat (just as Bush has tried to link Iraq with al-Qaida).

At the meeting with Bush, Sharon will likely try to get a free hand to counter any "provocation" or massive terror campaign. But negotiating is expected to be tough. Some officials in Washington suspect that Sharon merely wants to use the Iraq war to deliver a coup de grâce to the Palestinian Authority when the world's attention is focused elsewhere. By so doing, he would give Israel a stronger bargaining position on "the day after": He would be freed from dealing with Arafat and his "murderous gang," as Sharon calls the current Palestinian leadership. But such a move would incite even more Arab rage against the U.S.

As for Bush's possible reaction, there are two schools of thought in Israel. One holds that Bush needs Jewish support for his coming reelection campaign and will not risk it by alienating Israel. Bush knows that his father moved against Shamir and, while initiating the peace process, lost the election. In this view, the most important figure in Washington is Bush political advisor Karl Rove, and Sharon's visit, just before the midterm elections, is perfectly timed to extract concessions for Israel from the U.S.

The competing view sees the administration's larger foreign-policy agenda as trumping its worries about the Jewish vote. Its advocates argue that whatever happens in Iraq, the U.S. will have to tilt toward its Arab allies, both to reward cooperation and to ward off anti-American feelings. Therefore, Bush the younger will have no choice but to head straight to Jerusalem after conquering Baghdad.

The answer to the Bush riddle will be known only in the coming months, his promises to Sharon notwithstanding. Much depends on developments on the ground and the relevant players' behavior. Bush is also likely to take note of the November Jewish vote in critical states like Florida. If there is no massive Jewish defection to the Republican ticket, Bush might reconsider his belief that an alliance with Sharon will win him votes in 2004. That would be bad news for Sharon: The last thing he wants to hear is "Like father, like son."

Recent Stories