An Israeli Strike on Iran Just Got More Likely | New Republic
An Israeli Strike on Iran Just Got More Likely | New Republic.
John Kerry’s accidental diplomacy may have saved President Obama in Washington, but here in Israel, the White House’s indecisiveness of the last few weeks will cast a long shadow.
Israel has kept a low profile in the Syrian civil war, launching anonymous strikes periodically to prevent the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah, but otherwise keeping mum—and with good reason. A collapse of the Syrian state and the rise of jihadist groups would threaten the long-standing calm along the Golan Heights and is no less distasteful to Israel than Assad’s continuation in power. Israel certainly has a vital stake in the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal (Assad has missiles that can reach Tel Aviv; so does Hezbollah), but Benjamin Netanyahu still sees the issue through the same prism he sees ALL issues these days: As he said Wednesday, “the message Syria receives will resonate very strongly in Iran.” It will resonate very strongly in Israel as well.
The Obama administration (and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has argued to Congress that a failure to enforce the president’s red line on chemical weapons would embolden the Iranian leadership to test his red line on nuclear weapons. And, indeed, a no vote on the Syria resolution would devastate American credibility in Tehran. But Iran has shown few signs of being deterred even in the face of crippling sanctions and an American threat of military action, so the more salient question is how the handwringing in Washington will affect the calculus in Jerusalem as Israel continues to debate military action.
Before tackling that question, it’s important to dispense with a couple of misconceptions that have taken root around the world as Netanyahu has failed to follow through on his threats to strike Iran. The first is the idea that Netanyahu is bluffing—that the bluster, the innuendo, and the leaks of the past few years are all part of an elaborate ploy to goad the world into harsher measures. It is true that Israel has an incentive to overstate the urgency of the matter. Still, conversations over the past two years with individuals who have been directly involved in the decision-making process have convinced me that Netanyahu is quite serious about striking Iran and would have done so by now had it not been for intense American pressure.
The second misconception is that there is a meaningful debate within the Israeli government and security establishment about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear program. There is not. Virtually all top Israeli officials agree that given the choice between “bomb or bombing,” bombing is the lesser of two evils. The debate instead has been over whether Israel has more time to wait for other measures to take their toll or whether, by waiting too long, it risks allowing Iran to enter what former defense minister Ehud Barak called the “zone of immunity,” when the Iranian nuclear program would be beyond Israel’s military reach. There are a number of factors at play here, from the amount of uranium Iran possesses to the number and quality of centrifuges, not to mention the measures Iran is taking to hide and fortify its program. But the major question before Israel has ALWAYS been whether it could trust the U.S.—with its superior military capabilities—to strike in the event that its own window of military opportunity closes.
Until now, a number of senior Israelis have believed it could. “I heard very carefully what President Obama said,” former Mossad chief Meir Dagan told “60 Minutes” last year. “And he said openly that the military option is on the table, and he is not going to let Iran become a nuclear state.” Current president Shimon Peres was even more emphatic in an interview with The New York Times Magazine, arguing that Israel should give the U.S. more time to pursue sanctions and diplomacy. “If none of this works, then President Obama will use military power against Iran,” he said. “I am sure of it.”
Netanyahu is, well, less sure. While he has long expressed a preference for American military action—“I’m going to divulge a secret to you about [American] capabilities,” he once told Piers Morgan. “They’re actually greater than ours”—he doubts that Obama has the stomach for it. He also knows that Israel and the U.S. have different red lines. Netanyahu’s—which he famously sketched out at the U.N.—is Iran’s possession of enough fissile material for a bomb. Obama’s is the actual manufacture of a bomb.
Netanyahu had a fellow skeptic in Barak, who with him lobbied fellow members of Israel’s security cabinet in support of a strike before last year’s U.S. presidential election. While the details remain murky, all indications are that Barak changed his mind in the final weeks after receiving American assurances. The question in the wake of the great Syria zig-zag is what an American assurance is worth. If Syria is a test case for American reliability, it hasn’t been an encouraging one for Israelis. An immediate strike would have bolstered those Israelis urging greater consultation with the U.S., but Obama’s eleventh-hour move to put the decision in the hands of the likes of Rand Paul and Alan Grayson made him seem gun-shy. It also set a precedent that, if applied to Iran, would make any American military threat hollow. Unlike the limited strike on Syria that Obama has been proposing, an air campaign against Iran would be time-sensitive. Iran will soon have enough fissile material and centrifuges that, providing its weaponization program is sufficiently advanced, it may be able to produce a bomb within a matter of weeks if it decides to do so.
The argument will come up sooner than most think. Based on my reporting, I’ve become increasingly convinced in recent months that—barring an unforeseen diplomatic breakthrough—Israel will strike Iran before the end of next year, and conceivably well before then. The officials who order that strike may never know whether Congress would have voted down the Syria resolution and whether Obama would have acted anyways. But it doesn’t take negative answers to these questions for Israel to be concerned. The questions themselves are worrisome enough.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
September 13, 2013 at 5:32 AM
The US has turned inward to focus on its own needs. Since WWII America has been the arch enemy to Communism and the worlds policeman. Both arduous and expensive undertakings. Wars fought, people killed, economies nearly broken. As we move forward into the 21st century America can no longer afford both economically or psychologically to carry the world on its back.
Too often all over the world when things got dire, countries would say “America will take care of that” we’ll cheer them on. Those days are over. Time for everyone to adjust to the new normal.
It should be interesting to watch how Israel being first up in the new normal handles this paradigm shift.
September 14, 2013 at 8:51 PM
You can repeat your talking point all you want.
It doesn’t make it true. Why don’t you just copy and paste?
This myth that America is the world’s police man is very popular but it was never true.
Why don’t you study history instead of repeating it over and over again?
The truth is that the US did the world an enormous favour for which we all can be very thankful but it did this not for altruistic reasons or because they thought that they are the world’s policeman but the US did it because it was in its own interest.
You keep repeating this nonsense that the US carried the world’s weight alone.
The Us was not the enemy of communism but communism was the enemy of the US. At that time the USSR not only had control of central Europe but Stalin did seek to expand his control over all of Europe. Had he achieved that it would be not only very bad for Europe but also bad for the US.
Europe, after fighting the Nazis was destroyed and bankrupt and so the Brits could not support the other parts of Europe. While WW2 endet in 1945 a bloody civil war was fought in Greece until 1949. The Greeks were already paying the price of the ‘cold war’.
Had America done nothing Europe had fallen to the USSR. In essence Stalin would have achieved what the axis powers could not achieve. With Europe and the huge Russian land mass under its control It would have been only a question of time that the USSR would achieve control over the rest of Asia.
Eurasia is the greatest landmass on the planet with the greatest population, most of the natural resources and the greatest industrial power.
America could not withstand in the long run against this combined power and the Americans could at some point in the future kiss good bye to their freedom and their wealth.
That was, what the ‘Cold war’ was all about though it did spill over into South America and Africa.
America carrying the weight alone? Give me a break. As soon as Europe and Japan recovered they added their contribution to the western alliance. America did not carry the weight alone but it was helped by its allies. As in WW2 America could not win the ‘Cold war’ alone but only together with Europe, Japan, Australia and the rest of its allies. Moreover, America did not fight most of its wars alone but together with its allies like in the Korean War or the Gulf War.
You have stated repeatedly your position that the US should stay out of the world’s business and focus on itself. That is a position that I don’t share but everyone is entitled to his own opinion.
I respect your opinion but don’t use this crap to justify it or to make you feel better.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
You don’t have to take my word. Just study some good history books or watch some decent documentaries.
September 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM
Very thoroughly and deep analysis, especially the part regarding the relations between the US and the World – Europe, especially.
And, if I may, sharply original, because indeed, the US didn’t enter the war when, for example, London was bombarded. US entered the war only when their interests were endangered and when directly attacked.
Chapeau to you, Artaxes!
September 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM
John and Artaxes appear to be opposed on the facts of history. Actually they are not. They are both looking at the same facts from different perspectives.
If I looked at a realistic photo of a tank pointing its gun at me, I’d hit the deck and call for air support.
If I looked at the same picture from a 90 degree angle…. A stupid piece of paper, so what!
There is no such thing as a “fact” divorced from the perspective from which it’s viewed. At least for us human beings. No “fact” is knowable without a perspective which inevitably colors its interpretation. This is true even in physics. It’s called “quantum weirdness” by some.
The only being free from this limitation is God almighty, assuming there is one.
The best any of us can do is be aware of our own limitations and consider how what we plainly see before our eyes might be viewed differently from another angle.
Until we learn to do that, we’ll go on butchering each other with each of us convinced to his dying breath that he is “right.”
“Either war is finished or we are.” – Herman Wouk, War and Remembrance.
September 14, 2013 at 10:28 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that we humans have our limitations.
I disagree that everything is an interpretation or a ‘colored’ version of reality.
Let’s say that we both witness how a man stabs another man to death.
We may disagree whether this was justified, whether this was selfdefense or coldblooded murder but unless we have serious mental problems the fact remains that one man stabbed another man to death.
Having said that I agree that we must be cautios and test whether what we think are the facts are really the facts.
September 14, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Thanks Luis.
I want also to stress that I wrote this not to belittle anyone.
Neither did I want to belittle what our American friends did for the world.
I wrote it because I’m pissed off by the continued repetition of falsehoods and because these falsehoods create a dangerous illusion.
Whether we like it or not. There are enemies who declared war on us (on the West including Israel).
The cold war is officialy over but the forces behind it did not disappear. There is still a war going on between the forces of collectivism (communism and Islam) and the forces of freedom.
Though communism doesn’t call itself communism anymore the ideas and the agenda of communism is alive and kicking.
These ideas and agendas live on in the manifests and programs of so-called liberals, progressives, leftists, cultural marxists and the ecological movements like the green parties.
Collectivism is by no means dead.
September 15, 2013 at 12:00 AM
Also, don’t be so quick to throw Russia under the bus. As I said before, Russia does not benefit from a world with Radical Islam armed with nukes. They are just as likely target for atomic blackmail as anyone else.
September 15, 2013 at 2:05 AM
You are naive if you think that it is only the Obavez regime that does things that are against its own national interest.
Do I need to remind you that the US were buying weapons from the Soviets to give them to the Afghan rebels who in turn fought with these Soviet weapons against the Soviet invaders?
Don’t put too much trust on them.
Stupidity is not exclusive to Americans or anyone else.
As you will see in this video the Americans were willing to ignore the Pakistani nuclear program because they needed their help against the Soviets.
If Putin is stuck in the cold war thinking, why shouldn’t he do the same?
September 15, 2013 at 2:43 AM
Artaxes, the Cold War is over, stop living in the past. You sound like a person with no vision, like someone who can only see the bad in things. World domination is so provincial don’t you think. Sure, Russia wants to stay relevant and protect its interests. But it also knows its future is secured with modernity an the West not with 11th century Islamic madmen. Wake up and open your eyes. Stop being so bitter!
September 15, 2013 at 3:14 AM
Really John. I am not bitter.
I just care about the truth because I think truth matters.
Anyway, my bitterness or lack of bitterness is totally irrelevant.
You assume that the Russians will be rational based on another assumption about what the Russians think will be good for them.
It is also irelevant whether I live in the past or not.
It is only relevant whether Putin lives in the past and whether his vision of Russia’s future is a revival of Russias glorious past.
I posted a link to an extensive video about Putin’s way to the power and about his vision for Russia’s future.
I recomment that you watch this video before you answer this post.
I posted it here:
https://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/report-putin-to-travel-to-iran-for-nuclear-strategy-talks/#comment-43209
As for the visions, I rember a beautiful vision called “hope and change”.
I admit that I have lost a lot of visions from my youth.
These ‘visions’ suffered from a fundamental flaw. They were based on a wrong image of the nature of men.
Visions and ideals are for the youth.
Wisdom comes with age.
September 15, 2013 at 3:25 AM
“I just care about the truth because I think truth matters.”
Truth Artaxes, what are truths? Are you the keeper of the truth?
Do you claim to know the TRUTH? I’d say that is laughable.
History is written by the victors and they write their own versions of the “Truth”. It’s people like you who try to force their version of the “Truth” down people’s mouths who make things difficult.
September 15, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Please, John.
Spare me the bullshit. Don’t get emotional and don’t get personal.
Stay on topic. Take your time to respond to the points I made, if you like. I gave you a lot of material, I think.
I enjoy this forum because there is a high standard of discussion here.
So far you have not adressed the many points I made but you have chosen to deflect and discuss my motives and my person.
My person or my motives are absolutely irrelevant to my arguments.
Whether I am the person you think I am or not this does nothing to show that your arguments or my arguments are true or not.
I don’t care whether you understand this or not.
I’m not going to play these silly games.
Have a nice day.
September 15, 2013 at 3:59 AM
“My person or my motives are absolutely irrelevant to my arguments.” Artaxes motives are always relevant, otherwise, why bother speaking at all? Artaxes, your truths are your own!
September 15, 2013 at 9:13 PM
Boy oh boy. You don’even realize how ridiculous you sound. I explained what I meant in detail but you deliberately chose to misrepresent me.
The statement 2+2=4 is true regardless of why I make it and regardless of what kind of person I am.
Attacking the person instead of the person’s argument is called an ad hominem.
Misrepresenting a person’s argument and then attacking this misrepresentation is called a strawman argument.
You are guilty of both fallacies which usually are employed by people who are unable or unwilling to deal with the argument at hand.
You claim that it is laugable if I claim that I know the truth.
Well, it was you who made statements about ‘cold war’ history in the first place.
This makes you even more laughable because according to yourself you are either talking about things you don’t know or you are refuting your own claim.
I’m not infallible and willing to correct myself If presented with facts and good arguments which seems to be exactly your problem.
How convenient then to say “this is your truth”.
If the statement “your truth is your own” is only true for you then it is not true for me which means that my truth is also your truth.
If the statement is true for both of us then this truth is not your own truth but also my truth.
In both cases the statement is selfrefuting which means that it cannot be true.
Yeah I know, I’m one of those evil intolerant guys who are making things difficult.
I guess your math teacher was also one of those evil bastards when he told you that you can’t divide by zero.
Anyway, it was exactly these kinds of fruitless distractions that I wanted to avoid.
I’d rather discuss the topic at hand but you wanted to go further down this road.
In any case, I refuse to go further down this road and that is why I won’t answer you on this topic and on this thread anymore.
Sincirely
Artaxes
September 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Artaxes, am I entitled to my opinions, or should I just agree with you? Will that ease your troubled soul and make you feel better?
Ok I will from this point forward ditto to everything you say. :0)
September 14, 2013 at 11:57 PM
What you say about WWII I agree with, I’m dealing with the evolution of the world post WWII. The US economy after WWII represented a much larger slice of the global economy as it does now. Many other countries have made great strides in growing their economies. It’s not the same world. The US was the worlds policeman after WWII, for better or for worse. But it’s a new world now, the US nearly had its own financial collapse. The burden on humanity to keep the peace is now a global responsibility, like it or not!
September 15, 2013 at 2:37 AM
Either you did not read my comment accurately or you did not understand it.
I DID write precisely about the post ww2 world.
A policeman is someone who enforces the law without regard for his personal interest.
Don’t make me laugh. There were plenty of instances were the US and the world did precisely zero (Ruanda genocide, Darfur genocide etc.).
I’ll make it easy for you.
Just give me 3 examples where the US did something exclusively for moral reasons or to enforce international law without expecting anything to gain from it.
Good luck.
September 15, 2013 at 10:09 PM
There is simply none.
September 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM
There are three basic facts that have either been understated, or entirely unspoken: (1) Obama does not have the authority, under either the WPA or the US Constitution, to attack Syria; attacking Syria without Congressional authorization could lead to his impeachment (the fact that he should’ve ALREADY been impeached is besides the point here!). (2) “Red lines” and “all options are on the table” vis-a-vie Iran, were always a bluff, at least from the US; that was clear LONG before the Syria “red line”; the US didn’t act to prevent N Korea, India, or Pakistan from going nuclear, and it won’t act against Iran, either. (3) Iran has been in a “zone of immunity” for a long time; Iran is a very large country, with many places to hide illicit activities; it’s almost certain that they have hidden sites that are unknown to either US or Israeli military intelligence; taking out Iran’s known sites wouldn’t stop them, it would, at best, only delay them by 2 or 3 years. It’s unlikely that Israel could’ve ever stopped Iran, short of launching it’s own pre-emptive nuclear strike, which, for obvious reasons, hasn’t happened, and probably won’t; the US isn’t going to do that, either; only boots on the ground could stop Iran, and that, also, is not going to happen; a US invasion and occupation of Iran would be Iraq+Afghanistan x10, on steroids. Containment, for better or worse, is what’s going to happen, because there really aren’t any other viable options.
September 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Spartacus….
As opposed to your namesake, the Jewish people are not going to allow themselves to be crucified on the cross of “containment.”
If you think “boots on the ground” is the only way to stop Iran then you haven’t done your homework. For starters, use the search function on this site for “EMP.” Then Google ” EMP Israel.”
September 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Forgive me. Search this site for: “electromagnetic pulse”
September 14, 2013 at 7:32 PM
When and if Israel strikes Iran it will be with all its hardware and knowingly that that first attack wave must be the most devastating of all the subsequent attacks.I would not be surprised if Israel would resort to using tactical nukes on Iran along with the so called emp bomb.They will hit Iran with a force that has not been seen before in the world so that Iran would not even think about thinking retaliation.When a country like Iran engages in threatening a people that were almost exterminated in the 40’s with extermination -and these people and their leaders have prepared themselves not to have a replay of that situation again-I am amazed that Iran has not been pulverized yet. And continue with their threats towards Israel.Even a little mouse when cornered by a larger predator-will attack.
September 14, 2013 at 8:55 PM
I have no doubt that Israel will deal with Iran, the clock is however ticking and time just got shorter in the wake of the recent US weakness.