"After
a
winter of alarm over the possibility that a military conflict over the
Iranian nuclear program might be imminent, American officials and
outside analysts now believe that the chances of war in the near future
have significantly decreased." --New York Times, April 30, 2012
Or,
as Homer Simpson would explain it, "Doh!" I've been telling you this
for a year but at least on this issue--unlike all the others in the
Middle East---theTimes has finally caught on.
As you know, just about everyone in the world outside of
Israel has been claiming that an attack is imminent or that it is only being held back by the U.S. government.
My
argument has been that this is simply untrue. Most of the Israeli
strategic and intelligence leadership oppose an attack, for the same
reasons I do. Moreover, these people don’t believe it is going to happen
in the near future.
We
now have Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet from 2005 to2011; Meir
Dagan, former head of the Mossad; Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor; and
assorted others who have come out against an attack.
Then
there’s the commander of Israel’s military Benny Gantz who made a
fascinating statement, though this has been widely misunderstood. Gantz
seemed to contradict himself. He
stated that Iran’s leaders were rational but also that radical Islamist
ideologues might do wild things like attack Israel.
How
to square the contradiction? Simple. Gantz was making a suggestion. He
was telling Tehran: Wouldn’t it be smarter to stop short of building
nuclear weapons when you are technically able to do so? You have the
option of getting them if and when you want them but you won’t be
triggering an all-out confrontation including an Israeli attack if you
take this way out of your dilemma.
Note
that supposedly this is a point of dispute between Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama, in which Netanyahu
demands that Iran has no capability at all to ever build nuclear weapons
while Obama just wants Iran not to do so. Well, if there is such a
conflict then
why is Gantz endorsing Obama‘s plan?
Gantz
was not at all saying that Iran would take this alternative. He merely
said that Tehran might do so. The idea, of course, is a massive version
of the “good cop, bad cop” approach. At the same time, I am not
suggesting that Diskin and Dagan are in on some massive con-game. They
are genuinely opposed to an attack and do worry that Netanyahu might
stage such an operation.
But I think the following points are the closest approximation of reality:
--Israel
does not want to attack Iran. There are too many problems with such an
operation. It could be done but is it necessary at present? Would there
be the minimal international support needed? Would it make things better
and
genuinely make an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel less likely? On all
those points the answer is either a clear “no” or too close for
comfortably saying “yes.”
--Israel prefers that the sanctions or some form of negotiations work to prevent Iran from getting nuclear
weapons.
--An
Israeli threat of attack simultaneously spurs the West to put more
pressure on Iran to avoid a costly confrontation and more pressure on
Iran itself to get it to back down in some way.
--This can only work if it is not made too clear that this strategy is a bluff, at least at this time.
--My
impression is that even Defense Minister Ehud Barak has signaled that
Israel is not about to attack. He has reiterated the previous position
that Israel would only attack if Iran is on the verge of getting nuclear
weapons, a situation that clearly doesn’t apply.
--Contrary to international perceptions, Netanyahu is not at all a
reckless man and doesn’t like taking risks or launching military adventures. His record proves that point.
Personally,
I agree with Diskin and Dagan that an Israeli attack would make things
worse and that there is a better alternative even if Iran did get
nuclear weapons. That would be a strategy combining three things:
--Deterrence to stop Iran from attacking.
--Defense to minimize the
likelihood that Iran could hit Israel.
--The ability to launch a successful preemptive attack.
I have written in some detail about these three things and will do so more in future.
Finally,
one point that is widely misunderstood internationally—as people draw
from their own countries’ histories—is that Netanyahu is stirring up the
Iran attack scenarios to mobilize domestic political support. This is
simply not true. Israelis may have their own diverse views on the issue
but threatening to attack Iran—as opposed to being able to defend Israel
or attack Iran if
necessary—is not a big vote-getter. At any rate, Netanyahu would easily
be reelected in any test at the ballot box whatever he says on this
issue.
And PS as an example of how ridiculous Western mass media coverage of Israel is, Jodi Redoren, the new New York Times correspondent, refers to
Barak's "hard-line position about all options—including an independent
Israeli attack—remaining on the table." That's precisely the same policy
as another Barak the New York Times would never refer to as hardline on anything, Barak Obama. The idea that keeping all options open is hardly hardline, a word
that the newspaper doesn't apply to people who advocate war and genocide against Israel.
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