Barry Rubin
Does President Barack Obama now love Israel? Is he lying to help his reelection bid? Precisely what is the meaning of this or that sentence in his AIPAC speech?
All of this debate misses the point. What is needed here is not a partisan view or one which focusses on Obama himself but rather a strategic analysis.
Here it is:
Whether he realizes it or not, Obama changed history with his AIPAC speech. What he did is to make a war between Israel and Iran almost inevitable, let's say more than 90 percent probable, most likely some time in late 2013, 2014, or 2015.
Obama made a very serious commitment by laying out a very clear set of events. If and when Iran obtains a nuclear weapon then the U.S. government will support an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. It might even join in with such an attack.
This is a commitment that cannot be retracted. It will apply whether Obama wins or loses the election it will apply if he changes his mind. Some will see his action as heroic; others will see it as reckless. But it makes no sense to see it as false or to nitpick about the precise definition of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. So what? Here is Obama’s simple chain of argument:
--Israel cannot and should not accept Iran’s having a nuclear weapon.
--Iran having a nuclear weapon is a tremendous danger to U.S. interests.
--If Iran obtains one or more nuclear weapons that will prove that sanctions have failed.
--Consequently, at that time Israel is thus entitled to use force to prevent Iran from having such weapons or to destroy any that exist.
The phrase often quoted from Obama’s speech—that U.S. policy will not take any instrument off the table—is not important. It is the standard U.S. line we have heard for years. Obama has now gone far beyond this. If Iran builds a single atomic bomb that means force sufficient to destroy its nuclar capacity entirely is the only instrument on the table.
What is important is that Obama’s speech provides a green light for an Israeli attack.
The question is only one of timing. Obama asks Israel to wait in order to give sanctions a chance to work. But we know that sanctions are almost certain not to work, since work is defined as Iran giving up its nuclear weapons’ drive. And there is no reason to believe that this will happen.
What might avoid this outcome? I can only think of two alternative developments. Either Iran will stop just short of actually building nuclear weapons even though it has the material and knowledge for doing so or the regime will be overthrown.
Perhaps there is a third, if sabotage of various kinds can keep postponing the success of Iran’s program year after year into the future. Possible but not likely.
Otherwise, an armed collision is going to be inevitable. There will be an Israeli attack and thus a war.
For better or worse, Obama’s speech marks the total success of the Israeli campaign—abetted by both its friends and enemies—to heat up the situation. Believing that Israel was about to attack Iran, although I think this wasn’t true, Obama has sought to stall for time in a way that suits his own interests.
Like most politicians, Obama prefers to defer tough decisions to the future when, one can always hope, the worst won’t happen. Yet often, such a strategy makes the future outcome of the decision-making process inevitable. Of course, Obama wants Jewish support for his reelection campaign. But this isn’t all about Israel or the Jews by any means.
Obama needs to portray himself as a strong leader, one who doesn’t fear confrontation or the use of force. Moreover, a high proportion of the American public views Iran as a threat, indeed the number one foreign threat to their country. His action is going to be generally popular at home, especially because it doesn’t have any consequences between now and the November election.
Many will applaud this. I don’t. In my opinion, it would be better to set the bar at Israel’s freedom of action if it ever determined that there was a threat of nuclear attack from Iran. After all, such a framework would make war or a nuclear conflict less likely whereas the principle of attacking at the point where Iran might have weapons at all makes war and a possible nuclear conflict later on far more likely.
Yet Obama has explicitly rejected containment, which in this context makes it clear that there can be no scenario in which Iran has nuclear weapons but their use is deterred by early-warning stations, the threat of American or Israeli attack, and defensive measures.
We are now on the road to war. That’s what is important, not whether Obama gained votes or whether he is sincere or at precisely what second U.S. policymakers decide Iran has met the conditions for getting bombed.
This is huge and it is an unprecedented U.S. position that can be summarized as follows: Iran gets nukes. Boom!
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment