WarSclerotic

Has the time to make the final decision on a possible strike against Iran finally come? Judging by the evasive answers provided by the West and Russia following the recent round of nuclear talks in Kazakhstan — the answer is a resounding “no.” But if we listen to the undertone of the recent statements made by the White House and Congress the opposite may be true, as they suggest that in the absence of true progress in the diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis Iran, the United States is willing to consider realizing its military options.

Public opinion in the U.S. is also supportive, for the most part, of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, either by Israel or by the U.S. despite the general battle fatigue felt by the American public over the prolonged campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and the objections noted in Washington to any intervention in Syria.

Even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, whose opinion pieces often reflect the administration’s positions, recently wrote that U.S. President Barack Obama was “losing patience” with Tehran. The Washington Post claimed in a recent editorial that if there is still any “time and space for diplomacy with Iran” then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “red line” speech at the U.N. General Assembly in September should be credited. The speech, it said, “appears to have accomplished what neither negotiations nor sanctions have yielded: concrete Iranian action to limit its enrichment.”

This, of course, is relevant only if the regime in Tehran sees eye to eye with the international community and the U.S., which is highly unlikely.

Hitler’s biggest mistake during World War II was underestimating his enemies, especially the U.S., and having advisers who only told him what he wanted to hear. He believed the Americans would be reluctant to fight and that Britain would follow France and surrender. It is possible that Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is making the same mistake.

It is not hard to imagine how a fictional intelligence officer briefing Khamenei on the chances of the West waging a military strike on Iran, would halfheartedly tell him that the moves made by the Americans after each round of talks, such as having an aircraft carrier sail through the Strait of Hormuz, or appointing John Kerry and Chuck Hagel (who opposed military action in the past) to the positions of state and defense secretaries, indicate that there is only a 20 percent chance of a military offensive.

As for Israel, the fictional intelligence officer would hedge that the introduction of a new government and the fact that various internal issues are now considered a higher priority than Iran’s nuclear ambitions, can also indicate that Israel’s determination is waning.

We cannot rule out the possibility that the Iranian leadership would take such intelligence assessments at face value, since they correspond with their beliefs. This may very well lead Khamenei to make the same mistakes as Hitler.

Public discourse in Israel over internal affairs is important, but it is safe to assume that Mrs. Cohen of Hadera and the people of Sderot know the difference between urgent internal affairs and the existential threat posed by a nuclear Iran. Israel must therefore make it absolutely clear that it is determined to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day that “we will not leave our fate in the hands of others, even the best of our friends,” is a clear indication of that. Obama, during his visit in Israel in March reiterated that “the U.S. won’t stand back and allow Tehran to acquire such a nuclear weapon.” This was an important statement that cannot be taken lightly and in a few months, maybe even before the end of the year, both Israel and Iran will know what Obama meant.