Israel’s intentions towards Iran — the pressing question

From the Newspaper | | 3rd August, 2012
8
Send to Kindle
Benjamin-670-Reu

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. – File Photo by Reuters

JERUSALEM: Speculation over whether Israel is preparing for a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has intensified in the past few weeks after a period in which the atmosphere was less febrile.

The visit of four senior US administration officials — the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the defence secretary, Leon Panetta, the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and the counter-terrorism chief, John Brennan — suggests that Washington is renewing its efforts to rein in Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s inclinations towards military action.

It can be assumed that the administration is also anxious to reassure Netanyahu that it is committed to tackling the Iranian nuclear threat following presumptive Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s visit to Jerusalem earlier this week. Romney, assisted by his senior aide Dan Senor, positioned himself in hawkish solidarity with Israel. Senor even suggested that Romney would back unilateral action launched by Israel, although there was some later backtracking on that stance.

The message to Israel from administration officials boils down to this: the US is serious about preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, you need to trust us on this, we will in the end use force if we have to and we are much better equipped to do so than you, so don’t muck it all up by going ahead on your own.

An analysis in the Jerusalem Post by Yaakov Katz summarises the debate within Israel’s political and military establishment:

“The debate that is raging within the government and the defence establishment is not about the value of an attack, since no one really wants Iran to be allowed to go nuclear. The question, however, is about the timing of such an attack and whether it needs to happen over the summer, before the US elections, or if it can wait until afterward, maybe as far away as next spring.

“At the heart of this question are two additional questions — first, whether Israel can afford to wait that long and second, if Israel can really rely on the US to use military force one day if and when everything else has clearly failed.”

Some commentators believe Netanyahu will only respond to a clear and powerful message from Barack Obama. Writing in Haaretz, Ari Shavit says:

“The key to preventing disaster is … in the hands of the US president. Barack Obama is a brilliant orator. Obama has made quite a few exemplary speeches both as presidential candidate and as president. But the American president’s most important speech is the one he has not made so far — the Iran speech. A speech in which the leader of the free world pledges in public that the free world will prevent Iran from obtaining military nuclear ability — at any price. A speech in which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that if the sanctions don’t stop Iran, America’s military power will.

“A speech in which the US president stands before the citizens of the United States and its allies and says — it’s on me. I will not ignore your existential needs nor abandon our strategic interests, nor let Iran become a nuclear power. In my name and in the name of Mitt Romney and the bipartisan leadership, I hereby pledge that in the course of 2013 America will paralyse the Iranian centrifuges that could bring an historic catastrophe on us all.”

Such a speech will prevent an Israeli strike and “almost” guarantee Obama’s re-election, says Shavit.

An unusual view is taken by Larry Dernfer, writing on the +972 website. In a piece headlined “It’s over — there will be no Israeli attack on Iran”, he says: “Israel is not going to attack Iran. Not before the 6 November presidential election, not afterward if Obama wins, and maybe not afterward even if Romney wins, which is unlikely.

“It’s not that Netanyahu doesn’t want to bomb Iran — he does, and he makes that clearer every day. What’s happened is that there’s been such a torrent of opposition in the Israeli media this week from the security establishment, starting with IDF [Israel Defence Forces] chief Benny Gantz, and backed by the Obama administration and Pentagon, that there’s no way Bibi [Netanyahu] can get his cabinet to vote for a war, and without the cabinet’s backing, he can’t do it.

The ministers will not support Bibi in an extremely risky war opposed by the heads of the IDF, IDF intelligence, the air force, the Mossad, the Shin Bet and the United States of America.

Dernfer adds: “So I think the game is up. Making the case for war with Iran is now a losing battle, and people are going to start running away from it, beginning, I expect, with Ehud Barak, who has been Bibi’s equal partner in this whole scaremongering affair.”

By arrangement with the Guardian

COMMENTS

  1. Here is the conundrum; Israel is 10 times more powerful than Iran, Iran is 100 times more powerful than Hezbullah, Hezbullah defeated Israel in 2006.

  2. War ……… well u guys can not stop India and China from buying oil from Iran …… ur thinking of a War ……. first u should correct ur basics ………….

  3. They can always find an excuse and fabricate an incident, Internationalize it and go from there. It's the same old tried formula which works every time.

  4. I think Iran should get the bomb. Reason is simple, as long as Iran does not have the bomb, Israel has been threathining to bomb Iran daily and may do so in the future. It has forced the US to impose sanctions on Iran, because of the jewish vote. etc.stc. Iran has never been to war with any nation, Israel has since its creation, approximately 60 years. If Iran did have the bomb. Israel will stop its threat and the reality of war will receed. The Isreal stereotype repetition of stating that Iran wants to destroy Israel is a blatant lie. It has been repeated for so long that they have actually convinced many of us in the US that it is true. Ahmadnejad never said it. It is the neo cons in the government who want to bomb Iran for ther personal gain.

  5. A person possessing a weapon in a society makes every one posses it for balance in security. POwer should be balanced. 1st west should compromise then expect the eastern countries to do so, Else we have seen Vietnam Iraq Kashmir Bosnia Afghanistan. Today counties having the bomb are materialistically SAFE. So now it has become the right of every 1

  6. Is it true that Iran is making a bomb or it is just propaganda? Nuclear tech is NOT very complicated now as I understand, anyone can make a bomb, they say.

  7. A very informative article pulling threads of thought from different sources. I agree with the conclusions of the authors. Besides, US is stretched too thin at this point to open another war front and that too in a country that can give it tough time in multiple disparate geographic locations.