WarSclerotic

The Cutting Edge News.

Friendship Under Fire–Netanyahu and Obama Set to Meet

Washington Institute

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next month, U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will hold a key meeting over the Iranian nuclear challenge that will test their sometimes rocky relationship. After a weekend visit by National Security Advisor Tom Donilon to Israel, the White House announced this week that Obama will host Netanyahu in Washington on March 5. This will be an opportunity for the two leaders to synchronize their positions on Iran. Whether they can reach some common ground — now or in the near future — could be a decisive factor in Israel’s decision-making on whether to strike Iran sometime this year.

International pressure on the Islamic Republic has never been higher. In addition to the new, crippling U.S. sanctions enacted on Dec. 31 and Feb. 6, the European Union recently pledged to halt the importation of Iranian oil by July 1. Iran’s economy is reeling.

For their part, Iranian leaders have struck an increasingly aggressive note. They have threatened a preemptive strike against their foes, and warned that they could close the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s traded oil flows daily. In another recent act of defiance, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Feb. 15 that a “new generation” of Iranian centrifuges had just been activated at the Natanz nuclear site. And this week, IAEA inspectors charged with monitoring Iran’s nuclear program were denied access to a military facility, returning to Vienna after what they termed “disappointing” talks with their Iranian interlocutors.

Despite its saber-rattling, Iran is feeling the heat of international sanctions. Over the past month, the Iranian rial has been devalued by 50 percent. Iran has also indicated that it may even be willing to resume diplomacy, which it has scorned since the last round of negotiations in 2009 and 2010. With the media rife with speculation about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities by this summer, tensions between the two countries have risen to an all-time high. Iran is blaming Israel for the recent assassinations of its nuclear scientists, and Israel is accusing Iran of masterminding the Feb. 13 terror attack against Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, as well as attempted attacks in Tbilisi and Bangkok. It is no secret that Netanyahu and Obama have never been close, but now is the time for the two leaders to find common ground over the Iranian nuclear issue.

There has already been some progress in getting top U.S. and Israeli officials to speak about Iran in similar terms. Last week in the Knesset, Netanyahu said it is critical that the world — not just Israel — identify “red lines” when dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. In a CBS appearance last month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, as well as closure of the Strait of Hormuz, are “red lines” for the United States. However, the United States and Israel clearly differ in where their red lines lie. The United States has put the focus on Iran actually gaining a nuclear weapon, while Israel — more vulnerable to Iranian missiles due to its geographic proximity — views the threshold as the Iranian regime’s acquisition of enough low-enriched uranium to build a bomb, pending a political decision to convert it to weapons-grade fuel.

The other set of differences between the United States and Israel has to do with how long they are willing to wait before judging the international sanctions of Iran to be a success or failure. On the one hand, this is the first time that the United States and the EU have imposed the type of “crippling” sanctions that Israel has long called for. But on the other, recent statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak signal that Israel believes its window for military action is rapidly closing. As a result, Israeli officials fear they might not have the time to wait and see whether the sanctions halt Iran’s nuclear program peacefully. Israeli military capabilities to strike Iran’s proliferating nuclear sites — especially those bunkered deep within a mountain outside the city of Qom — are more limited than those of the United States. The prospect of a new round of Iranian-U.S. diplomacy is another critical component of this equation, as it could further postpone U.S. military action in the event that sanctions fail. Taken together, these circumstances could force an Israeli decision on a preemptive strike under suboptimal conditions.

All this puts Israel on the horns of a dilemma. It can hope that sanctions will ultimately deter Iran’s nuclear program, but this may mean foregoing decisive action against what it sees as an existential threat in the hope that the United States will act further down the road. Barak and Netanyahu are commonly identified as favoring a strike, but based on my recent trip to the region, it is clear that others within the Israeli cabinet and defense establishment still have doubts. As such, the prospect of a strike is not inevitable. If Israel believed that the United States were absolutely committed to handling this issue, it would certainly shift the Israeli debate about whether to strike. But without absolute certainty, holding off on a strike is a tough decision for Israeli officials to make. Many Israeli military leaders are children of Holocaust survivors who joined the Israeli army to ensure Israeli self-reliance in fighting against enemies who regularly pledge to eradicate it. A poignant reminder is the iconic photo of Israeli jets flying over Auschwitz in 2003, which hangs on the walls of many of their offices.

Nonetheless, it is a fundamental misreading of Israel to view this as an ideological issue. Israeli considerations of a strike are rooted not in their ethos of self-reliance, but in the fear that the United States will ultimately fail to strike, even if sanctions fail. Israeli officials’ fears are compounded by their knowledge that the American people are fatigued by conflict, and by the suspicions of some that the United States has not entirely ruled out a strategy of containment, U.S. protestations to the contrary. The Obama administration’s official policy opposes containment, holding that the Iranian nuclear program is too destabilizing for the Middle East. As the president told NBC on Feb. 5, “We are going to do everything we can to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and creating an arms race — a nuclear arms race — in a volatile region.” Concerns about Iran handing dirty bomb technology to non-state actors, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, along with fears that Iran would seek to dominate the Persian Gulf, are also all too real.

In light of these threats, some analysts could argue that Obama — who is known for his preference for Predator drone strikes in Pakistan and such surgical operations as the one that killed Osama bin Laden — would indeed resort to military action if sanctions failed. And despite tensions between Obama and Netanyahu over the Middle East peace process, sources close to Obama argued to me that these policy differences in no way infringe upon the president’s commitment to Israel’s security. At the same time, U.S. officials have also raised fears of an Israeli strike in the short term — as evidenced by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s comments on Feb. 19 that an Israeli attack would be “destabilizing.” Their fears center on the belief that an attack by Israel could unravel international sanctions, and that Iran would be able to reconstitute its program in fairly short order.

How can Obama and Netanyahu win each other’s trust? The two sides should come to a more precise understanding of U.S. thresholds for the Iranian nuclear program and American responses should they be breached, as well as an agreement on a timetable for giving up on sanctions so their Iran clocks are synchronized. In other words, the two sides need to agree on red lines that might trigger action. Israel will probably seek some guarantees from the United States before agreeing to forgo a pre-emptive strike that might not succeed. It may turn out that such guarantees are impossible, given the mistrust between the two parties and the ever-changing regional circumstances. Whatever the mechanism, there is no doubt that the U.S.-Israel relationship could benefit greatly from a common approach toward the Iran nuclear program at this tumultuous time. Their upcoming meeting and the months ahead promise to test the Obama-Netanyahu relationship like never before.

David Makovsky writes for The Washington Institute, from where this article is adapted.

Syrians trapped in Homs say world is failing them | World | Reuters.

By Erika Solomon

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Syrian activists deplored the outcome of an international “Friends of Syria” conference, saying on Saturday that the world had abandoned them to be killed by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian military took its bombardment of the rebel-held Baba Amro district of Homs into a fourth week as the Red Cross tried to evacuate more distressed civilians from the city.

“Negotiations have resumed with Syrian authorities and the opposition in order to continue evacuating all persons in need of help,” said Hicham Hassan, spokesman of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva.

“We hope to be able to carry out many more life-saving operations,” he said. “We are hopeful the ICRC will also enter Baba Amro today.”

But activists in Homs were despondent about Friday’s Friends of Syria meeting in Tunis and suspicious of the ICRC’s efforts because they involved the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, viewed as compromised by its links with the government.

“We refuse to work with the local Red Crescent,” said Nadir al-Husseini. “The government’s demand to use the Red Crescent is a dirty trick because this group is not independent, it is under the control of the regime. We have no trust in them.”

The ICRC said the Syrian Red Crescent had evacuated a total of 27 women and children from Baba Amro on Friday.

HUNDREDS OF WOUNDED

Husseini described desperate conditions in Baba Amro, where efforts to extract three Western journalists and the bodies of two others killed there on Wednesday have yet to succeed.

“It would be good if they (the ICRC) could bring in some aid. But even if they brought us some medical supplies how much would it really help? We have hundreds of wounded people crammed into houses all around the neighbourhood,” Husseini said.

“People are dying from lack of blood because we just don’t have the capability of treating everyone. I don’t think any amount they could bring in would really help.”

The Tunis conference of Western, Arab and other countries was intended to ratchet up diplomatic pressure on Assad to end an almost year-long crackdown on opponents of his 11-year rule in which thousands of Syrians have been killed.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned the Syrian leader and his allies at home and abroad that they would be held to account for the bloodshed and the humanitarian “catastrophe”.

Referring to Russia and China, which twice vetoed United Nations Security Council measures against Syria, she said: “They are setting themselves not only against the Syrian people but also the entire Arab awakening.”

But Omar, another activist in Homs, dismissed the gathering as a failure. “It was lawyer talk, not war talk. The message is ‘We’re with you on paper but not more than that’,” he said.

A doctor in the rebellious town of Zabadani, who asked not to be named, said: “I love the people of all countries but it’s clear none of them are very concerned about us or our crisis.

“I’m sorry to be so depressing, but I’m really frightened that after all these efforts we will still end up like Hama in 1982, killed while the world waits and watches.”

Assad’s father crushed an armed Islamist uprising in Hama 30 years ago, killing many thousands of civilians and razing parts of the city with tanks and artillery in a three-week assault.

“I can tell you that the people of Zabadani resent what happened in Tunis,” the doctor said. “We need them to arm the revolution. I don’t understand what they are waiting for. Do they need to see half the people of Syria finished off first?”

CLEAR MESSAGE

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday it was time to stop the killing of Syrians by their own government.

“All of us seeing the terrible pictures coming out of Syria and Homs recently recognise it is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally in sending a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition.”

Such talk fails to impress in Baba Amro where hundreds of civilians have been killed in the last three weeks.

“They (world leaders) are still giving opportunities to this man who is killing us and has already killed thousands of people,” said activist Husseini in the battered district.

“I’ve completely lost faith in everyone but God. But in spite of that, I know we will continue this uprising. We’ll die trying before we give up,” he said.

“The shelling is just like it was yesterday. We have had 22 days of this. The women and children are all hiding in basements,” Husseini said.

“No one would dare try to flee the neighbourhood, that is instant death. You’d have to get past snipers and soldiers. Then there is a trench that surrounds our neighbourhood and a few others. Then you have to go past more troops.”

Assad’s forces killed 103 people in Syria on Friday, the activist group Local Coordination Committees said. Most were civilians, including 14 children and one woman, it said.

Diplomatic moves are hamstrung because there is little appetite for military intervention in Syria and because of Russian and Chinese opposition to Security Council action.

Beijing and Moscow refused to attend the meeting in Tunisia.

Some Gulf Arab delegates at the conference called for an international peacekeeping force in Syria. The Saudi foreign minister said arming Syrian rebels was an “excellent idea”.

(Additional reporting by Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; Writing by Alistair Lyon; Editing by Ruth Pitchford)

‘US to announce aerial blockade on Syria’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

US readies for possibility of intervention without UN resolution, Asharq Al-Awsat reports, citing US military official; plan to include humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees on Turkey’s border

Roi Kais

The Pentagon is readying for the possibility of intervention in Syria, aiming to halt Syrian President Bashsar Assad‘s violent crackdown on protesters, the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Saturday, citing a US military offical.

According to the official, the intervention scenario calls for the establishment of a buffer zone on the Turkish border, in order to receive Syrian refugees. The Red Cross would then provide the civilians humanitarian aid, before NATO crews would arrive from Turkey and join the efforts.

The measure would pave the way for the US to declare an aerial blockade on Syria.

The intercession is to be modeled after NATO’s efforts in Kosovo, which brought an end to the Serbian control of the region. NATO’s plan of action included prolonged aerial shelling.

The US’ diplomatic efforts have yet to yield an effective international resolution that would stop the bloodshed. More than 100 protesters have died over the weekend alone, human rights activists said.

Russia, China to join aid efforts?

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, the Pentagon does not anticipate a change of heart on the part of China or Russia, who have opposed foreign intervention or sanctions against Syria. But the US expects the two nations to join the humanitarian aid efforts, support a ceasefire between the Syrian regime and rebels and send special UN envoys to investigate the developments in the country.

The next step in the reported US Department of Defense plan would be to appoint a team of UN observers to monitor the humanitarian aid, and enter Syria. They would need aerial protection, which would eventually lead to an aerial blockade.

The military official said in the interview that the plan is a cautious one, and takes into account the Syrian air force’s advanced capabilities.

In his most forceful words to date on the Syrian crisis, US President Barack Obama said Friday the US and its allies would use “every tool available” to end the bloodshed by Assad’s government.

“It is time to stop the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government,” Obama said in Washington, adding that it “absolutely imperative for the international community to rally and send a clear message to President Assad that it is time for a transition. It is time for that regime to move on.”

As government troops relentlessly shelled rebel-held neighborhoods in the besieged city of Homs, thousands of people in dozens of towns staged anti-regime protests under the slogan: “We will revolt for your sake, Baba Amr,” referring to the Homs neighborhood that has become the center of the Syrian revolt.

Opposition groups reported that 103 people were killed on Friday by the regime’s forces.

By restraining Israel, Obama is helping Iran get the bomb – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

(A very upsetting deconstruction of the Obama administrations recent moves on Iran.  I’m praying Netanyahu EMPs Iran.  I think the removal of Iran as a military threat to anyone is worth whatever fallout occurs. – JW )

For Iran, this is the right time to push for the bomb without fear of an American military sanction.

By Avigdor Haselkorn

IAEA: Iran uranium ‘discrepancy’… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By REUTERS

VIENNA – Iran has yet to clarify a discrepancy in uranium quantities at a Tehran research site, a UN nuclear watchdog report said, after measurements by international inspectors last year failed to match the amount declared by the laboratory.

The United States has expressed concern the material may have been diverted to suspected weapons-related research activity.

UN inspectors have sought information from Iran to help explain the issue after their inventory last August of natural uranium metal and process waste at the research facility in Tehran measured 19.8 kg less than the laboratory’s count.

Experts say such a small quantity of natural uranium could not be used for a bomb, but that the metal could be relevant to weapons-linked tests.

“The discrepancy remains to be clarified,” said the latest quarterly report on Iran by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), issued to member states on Friday evening.

The 11-page IAEA document also showed that Iran had sharply increased its uranium enrichment drive. The report’s findings, which added to fears of escalating tension between Iran and the West, sent oil prices higher.

Iran says it is enriching uranium only as fuel for nuclear power plants, not atomic weapons, but its refusal to curb the activity has drawn increasingly tough sanctions aimed at its oil exports.

In discussions with Iran this month about the discrepancy at the Jabr Ibn Hayan Multipurpose Research Laboratory (JHL), the IAEA said it had requested access to records and staff involved in uranium metal conversion experiments from 1995 to 2002.

“Iran indicated that it no longer possessed the relevant documentation and that the personnel involved were no longer available,” the UN agency’s report said.

Uranium analysis

The IAEA said Iran had suggested the discrepancy may have been caused by a higher amount of uranium in the waste than had been measured by the UN inspectors.

“In light of this, Iran has offered to process all of the waste material and to extract the uranium contained therein,” it said. The IAEA said it had also begun taking additional analysis samples of the material involved.

Iran’s envoy to the Vienna-based UN agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, last year dismissed the reported discrepancy as “absolutely not an issue.”

But a senior US official said in November it required “immediate” resolution, citing information indicating that “kilogram quantities” of natural uranium metal had been available to Iran’s military program.

Enriched uranium can be used to power plants, which is Iran’s stated aim, or provide material for weapons if refined much further, as Western states suspect is Iran’s ultimate aim.

Last November, the IAEA presented a stash of intelligence indicating that Iran has undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability, prompting Western states to ratchet up sanctions on Tehran.

Friday’s IAEA report also gave details of its mission to Tehran this week where Iran failed to respond to allegations of research relevant to developing nuclear arms – a blow to the possible resumption of diplomatic talks that could help calm worries about a new war in the Middle East.

Hamas Supports Syrian Opposition – NYTimes.com.

Khaled Elfiqi/European Pressphoto Agency

Hamas’s prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, greeted supporters after Friday Prayer, where he had spoken out against President Bashar al-Assad.

By FARES AKRAM

GAZA —A leader of Hamas spoke out against President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on Friday, throwing its support behind the opposition and stripping Damascus of what little credibility it may have retained with the Arab street. It was Hamas’s first public break with its longtime patron.

Hamas’s prime minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, said during Friday Prayer, “I salute all people of the Arab Spring, or Islamic winter, and I salute the Syrian people who seek freedom, democracy and reform.”

The worshipers shouted back, “God is great” and “Syria! Syria!”

Mr. Haniya made his remarks in support of the uprising that is seeking to oust Mr. Assad, a reversal after years in which Mr. Assad has given safe haven to leaders of Hamas while helping supply it with weapons and cash in its battle against Israel.

But the remarks were almost as significant for where they were made: in Cairo, at Al Azhar Mosque.

During the years in which Syria supported Hamas, Egypt’s leaders were hostile to the group, treating it as a despised relative of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was also tagged an outlaw and banned. So Mr. Haniya’s remarks in Egypt served as another measure of how much has changed since popular uprisings began to sweep the region, removing President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and now trying to topple Mr. Assad.

Mr. Haniya’s comments confirmed a distance between Hamas and Damascus that emerged several weeks ago when the group’s leadership abandoned its longtime base in Syria as the environment there became more violent. The remarks, which were seen as the group’s official position because of Mr. Haniya’s role, reflected a progressively deeper split with Mr. Assad. Hamas also recently allowed residents of Gaza to stage protests against Mr. Assad and in support of the uprising.

In Syria, the protest movement began peacefully, but Mr. Assad’s forces struck back with lethal force.

In Cairo, as Mr. Haniya spoke, the crowds also shouted against Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, both of which continue to support Mr. Assad and have long been hailed on the Arab street for remaining defiant toward Israel. That was yet another significant shift caused by the Arab uprisings.

“No Iran, no Hezbollah. Syria is Islamic,” protesters chanted, according to Agence France-Presse.

Iran has been a key supporter of Hamas. On Thursday, Al Sharq Al Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, published remarks by Ezzat al-Rashq, a member of the Hamas political bureau, who said that Iran had been the main financial supporter for the Hamas government in Gaza. Without the Iranian money, he said, Hamas would have never been able to pay its 45,000 government employees.

Mr. Haniya is in Cairo with other Hamas leaders from Gaza and abroad to meet with Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, to try to form a government of national reconciliation between the two rival Palestinian movements. The plan for such a government was agreed to last May, along with a plan for Palestinian elections. But numerous disputes remain an obstacle.

Pressure Points » Syria, Israel, and “World Opinion”.

by Elliott Abrams

The complaint that the Obama administration believes in “leading from behind” received new strength yesterday, when Secretary Clinton made an astonishing comment about the Syrian opposition. It came in the context of the Assad regime’s continuing massacres, an accusation from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that crimes against humanity are being committed, and the gathering today of 70 nations in Tunis to discuss the Syrian situation.

The Secretary of State said of the Syrian opposition that “they will, from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves….” And that was viewed as a toughening of the American position! The Secretary added that “world opinion is not going to stand idly by.”

“World opinion” has a long history of standing idly by, actually, as the Syrians being attacked by tanks now understand–and as everyone from Kosovars to Darfurians to Iraqi Shia who rose up against Saddam know well. In fact the Secretary’s malapropism is telling: of course “opinion” does not “stand idly” or end its passivity, for in the world it is nations that act. Or, like ours now, fail to act to help Syrians defend themselves from a murderous assault. They do not need more meetings such as the one in Tunis, nor more words, nor UN votes. With perhaps 7,500 dead and the number climbing each day, they need concrete help.

Among the many lessons here, one is about power and powerlessness. Syrians are being slaughtered because they do not yet have the power to defend themselves, just like people in Kosovo before them (where we heard the same nonsense about not militarizing the struggle or how we must avoid “just increasing the level of violence” as arguments against helping them).

And just like the Jews of Europe in the 1930s. Israelis are familiar with that story, and have noted well the willingness of “world opinion” not only to “stand idly by” when they are being attacked but attack them for their self-defense and even try to prevent it. Israelis remember that when the United States sought to resupply them when they stood at the precipice of disaster in the 1973 War, European nations refused us the right to land our Air Force planes for refueling. They remember the vicious comments their defense in the 2008 “Cast Lead” operation in Gaza elicited, after 12,000 rockets had been launched from Gaza into Israel. To this day, Israel is the only country on earth expected to “stand idly by” while rockets land on its territory. In fact two landed today–shot from Gaza.

I mention all of this because of another debate about self defense and self help, that surrounding Israel and the Iranian nuclear weapons program. As Israelis consider their options and face a future in which Iran  builds a nuclear weapon, threatens them, or attacks them, they cannot be much reassured by the Tunis conference and the refusal to help Syrians defend themselves. They must wonder if some day they will hear an American secretary of state saying of them that “they will, from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves….” and “world opinion is not going to stand idly by” while they are under attack.

Leslie H. Gelb: The Iran-Washington Conspiracy? – The Daily Beast.

Feb 24, 2012 4:45 AM EST

Both Washington and Tehran are maneuvering to head off an Israeli attack against Iran, a process of intriguing diplomatic gamesmanship.

By Leslie H. Gelb

Both sides have reached the conclusion that war is worse than continued uncertainty—at least for the time being, as far as the United States is concerned.

Iran and Obama Share a Common Goal: Stopping Israel « Commentary Magazine.

Veteran foreign policy pundit Leslie Gelb taps into an uncomfortable truth today when he writes in the Daily Beast about the unspoken agendas at play in the debate about how to stop a nuclear Iran. As Gelb puts it, both the Obama administration and the Islamist regime in Iran are employing a common tactic as well as a shared goal in their diplomatic maneuverings in the dispute about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Both are doing their best to pretend there is a serious chance for substantive negotiations on the nuclear issue. And both are doing so because their priority is not so much to actually resolve the issue but to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Given that President Obama has been escalating his rhetoric about his determination to stop Iran’s plans, this is a shocking charge, since it casts everything Washington is saying on the subject in a cynical light. The problem though is Gelb is almost certainly right.

Gelb stipulates that the common agenda between Washington and Tehran does not mean they are acting in concert. The lines of communication between the two governments are so tenuous that such collaboration would be impossible even if suspicion between them were not so intense. But the priority for both is to be able to postpone any resolution of the issue. Obama’s hope is that by holding out the prospect sanctions will bring Tehran to heel, he can exert sufficient leverage on Israel in order to prevent them from attacking Iran. Such an attack would unleash a host of unforeseen circumstances that might upset his re-election plans. Similarly, the ayatollahs would like to give just enough room for talks about talks in order to play for more time to continue developing their weapon plans. Yet, because it is painfully obvious sanctions will not work and the only point of negotiations would be to allow Iran to run out the clock on their nuclear timetable, the push to put off any attack appears to be tantamount to a concession that the West and Israel will have to live with a nuclear Iran.

An attack on Iran by Israel would be a perilous undertaking, so it is not surprising Israel’s government has not made up its mind about making such a decision. However, both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak understand that even if the West undertakes a complete oil embargo of Iran sometime later this year that would not guarantee Tehran would wave the white flag on its nuclear plans. They also know the longer they wait the chances for a successful strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities will diminish.

But the biggest factor influencing their decision will be their level of trust in President Obama’s promises on Iran. The administration has done little to inspire confidence in their sanctions plan due to the reluctance with which they have pursued the project. The Israelis know Obama’s default position will always be a preference for negotiations even if talks with Iran are not merely doomed to failure but will actually serve the Islamist regime’s purpose of delaying action.

Even more worrisome is that the administration’s determination to squelch unilateral action by Israel seems to be greater than its alarm about Iran. Hence, the multiple statements by American defense and military figures seeking to throw cold water on the idea of an attack on Iran may have had the opposite effect on Israel than Obama intended. Rather than convince them to listen to the Americans’ advice and rely on their diplomatic tactics to stop Iran, they may have instead persuaded Netanyahu and Barak that Obama has no intention of ever taking action. While Obama must continue to insist an Iranian nuke is a non-starter while he is running for re-election, the Israelis understand the White House may be singing a far different tune next January once Obama’s lease on the premises is extended for another four years.

Like Gelb, the Israelis may well believe Obama’s show of concern about Iran and his notion that sanctions and diplomacy will avert that nuclear threat is mere playacting whose only purpose is to put them off. The question facing Netanyahu and Barak is whether they are prepared to play along with Obama while hoping a delay will not prove fatal to their country’s security.

Never Underestimate Israeli Ingenuity.

IAF Mirage Fighter Jet during Yom Kippur War. Photo: wiki commons.

As the battle of both words and deeds heats up between Iran and the west, some experts have begun to question whether Israel even truly has the capability to effectively strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. A recent assessment by American defense officials, for example, outlined the difficulties that Israel’s air force would have in conducting an attack on Iran. Other analysts have claimed that Israel is creating a disinformation campaign about its capabilities in order to deter its adversaries. The truth, however, is that Israeli ingenuity has proven itself time and again, with Israel’s enemies consistently regretting when they have underestimated Israeli military capabilities.

As far back as Israel’s war of independence in 1948, when Arab armies invaded the same day the nascent Jewish state was born, Israelis proved their ingenuity and resolve in the face of overwhelming odds. Ben Gurion himself was told that Israel had about a 50/50 chance of being victorious. Yet with their backs against the wall, the Israeli military proved itself to be a capable and lethal force. In 1948, much like 1967 and 1973, Israel did not have the technological superiority over its neighbors as it enjoys today. During the 1967 Six Day War, as enemy troops were amassed on its borders and international waterways were sealed off to Israeli shipping, nobody would have predicted such an overwhelming victory in six short days. During its initial air strike back in June of 1967, the Israel Air Force took the calculated risk of deploying nearly its entire fleet of aircraft to preemptively attack Egypt and later Syria, leaving less than a dozen planes to protect its airspace.

Conventional wars alone were not the only time Israelis beat the odds. While analysts have gone to great lengths in explaining that Iran’s nuclear facilities today are nothing like Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear reactor that was destroyed in an Israeli raid back in 1981, they fail to appreciate the enormous feat accomplished over 30 years ago. Back then, Israel had to develop what had been unknown or unavailable capabilities to strike at an enemy seemingly too far from its borders. It did so successfully, as it had in the 1976 hostage rescue in Entebbe, as well as the bombing of the seemingly out-of-reach PLO headquarters in Tunis in 1985.

Yet it is not just distance that the Israelis have managed to overcome, but tactics and technologies as well. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was faced with a very effective surface-to-air-missile (SAM) umbrella developed by the Soviets and employed on the Egyptian border. In a few short weeks the IDF developed new tactics, doctrine and technologies to overcome these defenses. During the 1982 air battle over the Bekaa Valley, Israel used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to pick apart and destroy the vast SAM sites that the Syrians had put into play, pioneering the role and significance of the drone aircraft.  In 2007, the Israel Air Force again managed to overcome technological difficulties, as it hacked and shut down the sophisticated and “impenetrable” Tor-M1 missile system that the Syrians had purchased from Russia.

There is no doubt that an attack on Iran would be unprecedented in the level of sophistication, planning, and sheer cunning that it would require. Yet if the order was given to the IDF to attack Iran’s nuclear program, more than a few surprises would emerge. Even a surgical strike would see the use of limited, if covert ground forces that would operate in conjunction with the air force. If history is a good indicator, the traditional flight paths being considered by military analysts would not be the only ones used by Israel, and Israeli technologies in the form of UAVs, extended fuel pods for attack aircraft, jamming devices, satellites, computer viruses, and naval forces, would all operate at once to inflict and assess damage on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Although a level of uncertainty regarding a potential Israeli strike on Iran remains, it would be prudent to remember that when it comes to carrying out its mission: never underestimate Israeli ingenuity.

Dr. Joshua Gleis is an international security consultant and political risk analyst. He is the author of Withdrawing Under Fire: Lessons Learned from Islamist Insurgencies (Potomac Books, March 2011), and co-author of Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Analysis (Johns Hopkins University Press, Fall 2012).