WarSclerotic

In a speech that surprised the Knesset plenum with its sharpness, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu redirected the media’s focus on Wednesday away from the rocket attacks on Israel’s south and the successes of the Iron Dome back to the strategic issue of Iranian nuclearization.

His speech included absolutely no improvisation. He refused to be drawn into the usual exchanges and avoided all slips of the tongue. It was clear that when he conjured Menachem Begin’s act of ignoring U.S. objections and bombing the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 he was thinking of Ecclesiastes 9:1 – “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

Any onlooker, even the most superficial, can see that Netanyahu is playing the most dangerous hand of diplomatic poker, and the stakes are particularly high. Every trip by Defense Minister Ehud Barak to Washington is another attempt to improve Israel’s hand before it makes the fateful decision on which way it wants to go.

The common Israeli citizen does not know whether or not Netanyahu has decided to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. He certainly does not know whether attacking Iran would be a good move, a bad move, or the lesser of two evils. History’s verdict will only be determined after the fact. Only one thing is clear: If there is any real chance of compelling Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations without the use of force – be it by Israel, the U.S. or Europe – it is dependent on Netanyahu and his ministers’ abilities to convince Iran that their warnings are not just empty rhetoric.

This is a tough game of poker. In order to win, one must make use of all the diplomatic and verbal tricks – starting with a comparison to the Holocaust and ending with the argument that when Israel uses force it is actually strengthening its bond with the U.S. This may not be true, or may not apply in this particular situation, but saying it increases the chances that use of force will not become necessary.

That is the basis for the criticism on Kadima Chairwoman and opposition leader Tzipi Livni and with ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who said in a television interview that the heads of Israel’s intelligence agencies opposed an Israeli strike on Iran. With these remarks he not only hand-delivers important information to Tehran, he could also be convincing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his buddies to make decisions on the assumption that they are not in any danger of an Israeli attack. After all, no democracy (or dictatorship for that matter) acts against the advice of its intelligence chiefs without thinking long and hard first (though Begin did just that when he ignored the advice of then-Mossad Director Yitzhak Hofi and then-Military Intelligence Director Yehoshua Saguy).

The first fruits of Israel’s verbal poker may have already become apparent: anti-regime protests have resumed in Iran, Ahmadinejad has been summoned to be reprimanded by the Iranian parliament, and above all, Iran is willing to engage in negotiations over their nuclear program – though this may just be a ruse to buy time. This ruse could, however, serve to bolster the world’s commitment to stopping Iran’s nuclearization, even by force if necessary, and therefore the aim is to involve Russia in some of the efforts to impose sanctions on Iran.

True, If Netanyahu is wrong and he is unsuccessful in stopping Iran with this hand of diplomatic poker, and if the ensuing military strike is, god forbid, a failure, many will kick themselves for not opposing the attack in advance. But anyone who wants to give diplomacy a chance has to give the government some room to verbally maneuver, both at home and with the broader world.