“Netanyahu’s and [Defense Minister Moshe] Ya’alon’s statements come in response to the American position, which has been unclear, hesitant and lacking in consistency. This has created a huge vacuum in the international arena, into which Russia and Iran have entered. Today we have a situation where Russia and Iran are those who propose diplomatic solutions, and the United States is in a defensive stance. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin also uses Israel, and says that an American strike in Syria would endanger us, while hinting that the Syrians could act against us. This is precisely the mirror image of the Americans, considering that at one point Obama turned to AIPAC to help him convince the American public and the Congress to support a military operation in Syria.”

Danny Ayalon, after Obama’s capitulation, is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu right when he says, “If I am not for myself who will be for me”?

He also attacks his rival, Liberman, who served as foreign minister from 2009 to 2012, for his attempt to build a strategic partnership with Russia, which acted in favor of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad throughout the last crisis and has opposed Obama’s proposed military strike. According to Ayalon, Liberman’s foreign policy focus on Russia was a personal caprice of his, lacking in logic and contrary to Israeli interests.

Ayalon has long been closely familiar with American politics and foreign policy. During his term as ambassador in Washington, the United States went to war in Iraq, and Ayalon coordinated its cooperation with Israel. In an interview with Al-Monitor he analyzes the influence President Barack Obama’s conduct in the Syrian crisis has had on Israel and on deterrence against Iran.

“Because of Obama’s hesitation American deterrence capability has been damaged, and as a result, Israel’s deterrence capability has also been damaged.” This is the appraisal of former Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon , who served from 2002 to 2006 as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Today Ayalon is a private businessman, after he was removed from the Yisrael Beiteinu list by party chairman and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman on the eve of the last election [January 2013], and was forced to leave politics.

Was Russia more sophisticated than the United States?

“Much more sophisticated. It always anticipated several moves ahead, the initiative has always been in its hands. The response to Putin’s declaration was Netanyahu and Ya’alon’s statement, saying, “Israel will know to protect itself with great force.” Putin understood that Obama’s Achilles’ heel is the American public and Congress, and that’s why he acts like a guerrilla behind enemy lines, in an attempt to influence American public opinion against an attack. He played the Israeli card because he understands that it’s very important among the American public.”

Netanyahu’s statements a few hours after Obama’s speech [Sept. 10], that Israel must take care of itself, were interpreted as criticism of Obama. What’s your opinion?

“It can certainly be seen as an implied criticism of the fact we’re alone and have no one to depend on, besides ourselves. Obama said that Israel can defend itself on its own and with crushing force. The point is that the United States is the one that is emphasizing Israel’s military capabilities.”

What’s the extent of the damage this caused us?

“Since one of the main components of our deterrence is our alliance with the United States and its deterrence capabilities, once their deterrence is impaired it impacts us. Although everyone is talking about Syria, their eyes are on Iran. When the Iranians see the conduct toward Syria, they are very optimistic about their ability to continue in the nuclear direction. The evidence is that in the last few days the Iranians have stepped up the pace of uranium enrichment.”

Are we witnessing a change in the power dynamics among the world powers?

“We have to make a clear diagnosis. The objective balance of power among the world powers has not changed. The United States still has economic, military and strategic advantages over the Russians, the Chinese and both of them together — and it will stay this way. But a world power is measured not only by its objective abilities but also by its willingness to use this power. The United States lost points when it proved to the world that it’s not willing or it’s hesitant to use its abilities. This is both because of Obama’s ideology, and because the American public is tired from a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. And so in this respect there’s a different dynamic.”

Were you convinced by Obama’s advisers' attempt to present his decisions as a brilliant maneuver, meaning that he intended to pursue a diplomatic solution in the first place?

“No. Because he lost so much credibility and so much prestige and public standing in the process that it does not allow him any room for maneuver in the future. It significantly weakened his abilities. It may be that the end result will be optimal, that the chemical weapons will leave Syria without a single shot fired. But it will not happen because of Obama — but in spite of Obama.”

How should Israel behave in this situation?

“It should remember that its ally, its most loyal friend, is the United States. And so we have to stand by Obama’s side, whatever he does. Secondly, we have to send the message, and I assume that they already have, to the Syrians through the Russians, that we will not accept any crossing of red lines. If we even see that they are intending to strike us, we will respond with great force, including preemptive strikes. We will not wait for the Syrians to attack us with missiles. Also, if we see that chemical weapons or any weapon that shifts the balance of power moves to the hands of Hezbollah or other irresponsible actors, like al-Qaeda, then we will also respond.”

Can Israel depend on the United States when it comes to Iran?

“Yes, Syria is not Iran. The Iranian nuclear program threatens American strategic interests. It impacts the energy market and oil prices. When oil prices are high in the Gulf — they will be high anywhere in the world. Unlike with Syria, a majority of Americans support preventing a nuclear Iran.”

When Liberman was foreign minister he put all his hope on Russia. Has this concept collapsed?

“From the outset this initiative had no grasp on reality. Putin has consistently backed Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas, not to speak of Iran. So that it’s clear that this shows not only wrong judgment on Liberman’s part, but also a lack of understanding and irresponsibility. Liberman thought he had good connections in the Eastern bloc and so he worked in this arena. These were not relevant considerations, but personal ones, based on good relations with various players in Russia and its satellite states, mostly Belarus. After all, today, when it’s striving to regain equal standing to the United States after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, Russia’s basic interest is to act as a counterweight to the American position. This means that it backs whoever the United States opposes."

And Liberman didn’t see this? After all, you’re involved in a dispute with him and people will accuse you of saying this in the context of the fight between you.

“Even if he saw this, he didn’t care. This demonstrates his cynicism and his treatment of national issues, which he subjects to all sorts of personal whims. In fact, Putin used him. The Russians considered him as a type of accomplice. It’s hard to forget how he sat like a little boy next to Putin, like a fan, after the last election in Russia when Putin won once again, and all of the West, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spoke out against the human rights violation and the serious fraud in that election.

“In comes the foreign minister of Israel, meets with Putin and praises the supposedly democratic elections, at a time when the United States speaks against them. Since then the Americans have ignored him, they had already gotten sick of him at that point, and Clinton didn’t want to see him.”

Liberman’s office responded: “Danny Ayalon has already proven that his words are not worth the paper they’re written on, and so there’s no point in responding to them.”

Mazal Mualem is a contributing writer for Al-Monitor and formerly a chief political analyst for Maariv and Haaretz. She also previously worked for Bamachane, the Israeli army's weekly newspaper.