WarSclerotic

The New York Times is not the official White House bulletin, but it is considered to be a credible newspaper, and as such it generated a lot of interest with a report on Monday suggesting that U.S. President Barack Obama was considering answering the question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been asking him about: What is the red line beyond which the U.S. would be willing to use military force against Iran?

Ever since Obama promised the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC that he would curb Iran’s nuclear program the U.S.’s official stance has been on hold, and has even reversed. U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta insisted that “all options are on the table” but Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey did his best to distance himself from Israel’s position if Israel was headed for an attack on Iran.

An Israeli attack? One-time national security adviser Professor Uzi Arad spoke on television several days ago saying that if the Americans thought that an Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack would include American targets, then “it makes sense for them, even though it looks bad, to publicly, and in other ways, signal to the Iranians: ‘Don’t act against us, we are not accomplices,’ as Dempsey said. This in order to prevent an [Iranian] attack on them.” A Yedioth Ahronoth report on Monday (suggesting that the U.S. secretly communicated this very message to Iran, something – which the U.S. has since denied) served to bolster Arad’s argument. There is definitely room for concern.

On the one hand, the White House’s willingness to define clear red lines will contribute greatly not only to Obama’s re-election campaign but more importantly to the setting of clear boundaries in the Middle East. The Iranians are listening for messages coming from the U.S., or a lack thereof. Perhaps now the U.S. will make a statement and help stop Tehran.

A debate is still raging in the White House over how much force Obama should commit to, and how personal the commitment should be when he addresses this issue, possibly even in coming days. There are those who see it as an effort to give Israel an out (and that, too, is important to Jerusalem, but it is not the main thing). The clearer and more unequivocal Obama is in his message to the ayatollahs, the greater the chance that Iran will restrain its quest for a nuclear bomb, which could potentially be complete in mid-2013. This could obviate the need for the U.S. to make good on its threat, to everyone’s relief.

Despite the U.S.’s declining status in the world over the last two decades, all the Middle Eastern capitals still listen to what the Americans have to say and still take the U.S. with the utmost seriousness. This obligates the White House, but it also grants the White House opportunities, and The New York Times’ report — if it materializes — is the most important news at this time.

A U.S. commitment is no guarantee that the U.S. will attack if the need arises. But the absence of a commitment will all but guarantee that the U.S. won’t employ its full force. In diplomatic terms, these are fateful days.