WarSclerotic

Netanyahu’s deceptive tactics obscure strategic success – Opinion Israel News | Haaretz.

Rather than being bad news for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy, the agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is proof of its success.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: His bluster hides a successful strategy. Photo by AP

The prevailing argument regarding the U.S.-Russian agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons is that it’s a bad development, even a failure, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Iranian strategy. Since Israel behaved as though it was hoping for a U.S. attack – both behind the scenes and in the dissemination of reports to the effect that Military Intelligence had intercepted conversations confirming that Syrian President Bashar Assad had deliberately used chemical weapons – the natural conclusion is that the cancellation of the operation is a blow to Israeli policy. A policy that hoped that an attack would send a signal to Iran and undermine its ally.

Even Netanyahu’s “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me” speeches early in the week and anonymous statements by ministers reinforce the sense of Israeli disappointment. And in fact, Iran is presumably watching the behavior of U.S. President Barack Obama and concluding that it won’t be attacked either. Netanyahu therefore remains alone. It is tempting to mock him, as many are doing.

This point of view confuses the prime minister’s tactics and his strategy, which is now in its optimal and most promising stage. The truth is that Israel, in contradiction to Netanyahu’s belligerent declarations, does not want to attack Iran, not alone and not with the help of the United States. That is a last option, whose effectiveness is not guaranteed, even in the opinion of those who favor a military strike. Israel – also in contradiction to Netanyahu’s declarations – does not really fear a second Holocaust, but rather the very fact that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, which weakens Israel strategically and is liable to cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In order to prevent that, Netanyahu is threatening an attack. In order to strengthen the threat, he is using the card of Holocaust awareness. That, in effect, is a deceptive tactic: to create a sense of horrifying danger to the country, which will require the U.S. to defend its ally, or require Israel to embark on a preventive action.

The strategic objective is different: to carry out in Iran what will happen in Syria. Because it’s clear to everyone that Iran’s nuclear program, like the chemical weapons in Syria, cannot be destroyed completely in a military attack. The disarmament agreement in Syria produces a result more effective than any bomb – even if it is not implemented in its entirety. Netanyahu is now at the peak of implementing his strategy – precisely because of the reasons that ostensibly prove that it is weakening.

Nore does the fact that Russia prevented an attack prove the other side of the coin. In effect, Russian President Vladimir Putin has joined the effort against non-conventional weapons. Since Russia’s status in the world has been strengthened as a result of the agreement, it is likely to join a similar move against Iran. Because even Russia is not interested in the proliferation of non-conventional weapons, but in strengthening its diplomatic power.

In addition, Obama’s foot-dragging before the attack also reinforces the threat against Iran. Had the U.S. attacked in Syria – after the tiring process leading up to a vote in Congress and in light of the collapse of his international support – we can reasonably assume that the administration would have been too exhausted to embark on another campaign. In Iran, they are probably concluding that Obama can’t threaten twice and give in both times. Next time, he’ll shoot. That is why the chances that Iran is willing to compromise have increased.

The trap in which Netanyahu finds himself lies in his inability to boast of an achievement. If he declares that he is satisfied, he will lose, He must continue to threaten, and through his ministers to convey ostensible disappointment in the Americans. If the cooperation with the U.S. administration continues to be conducted clandestinely, until in the end Iraq’s nuclear projects are dismantled, the newspapers will continue to mock Netanyahu’s lack of proportion in connection with the Iranian threat – but historians will judge his Iranian policy positively.

This entry was posted on September 18, 2013 at 7:18 AM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.