Posted at
The Baltimore Group by my colleague.
As Ayatollah Khamenei accelerates his country's pursuit of uranium enrichment and President Ahmadeinejad calls for a Holocaust forum, the threat of Iran weighs heavy on minds in Israel. Granted everything weighs heavy on the collective conscious here, from the incapacitated prime minister to the upcoming Palestinian elections and everything in between. But Iran's potential nuclear capability poses the only ostensive existential threat, and therefore warrants top concern for Israeli leadership. The question thus emerges: How will Israel, mired in political turmoil, react? Is it enough for Israel to watch as a barely unified international "community" attempts peaceful negotiations with Iran? Maybe Khamenei feels a sense of immunity because he doesn't believe anyone will boycott Iranian oil; maybe Ahmadeinejad just enjoys defying the world, as he frequently thumbs his nose at American demands for sanctions and brushes off semi-friendly appeals from Russia and China.
::MORE::
Whatever the case may be, Iran seems unimpressed, and not the least bit intimidated, by calls from abroad, and its bellicosity is furthered by menacing remarks about wiping Israel off the map. Imagine Iran with the bomb, considering its intimacy with Hizbollah and a host of Islamic extremist groups. A nuclear Iran opens a whole new can of worms in this powder keg geographers frequently refer to as the Middle East.
Suppose Israel stands by and the worst case scenario materializes: negotiations fail, no other state pursues the military option, and Iran successfully builds a nuclear bomb. Israel would have to publicly reveal its nuclear facility in the Negev Desert (which is about the worst kept secret in the region) and rely on deterrence and second-strike capabilities. Then its another arms race. The current situation is reminiscent of Iraq's missile development in the early 1980s. Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided on a unilateral strike of the Iraqi reactor in 1981, inaugurating Israel's policy of preemption with regard to any regional enemy that has the possibility of going nuclear. The problem then, and the problem now, is that nothing is clear-cut; even the best intelligence cannot predict what will happen in the event of a preemptive launch on another state's nuclear project. If Israel decides to strike, will Iran unleash hell in return? Will Hizbollah mount a third intifida? Will a new round of insurgents infilrate Iraqi borders? Will Iran close the oil checkpoint at the Strait of Hormuz and emasculate the world economy by cutting off the flow of a major source of oil (albeit shrinking its own oil revenues)? It's impossible to know, but a recent Israeli Air Force report, published in the Jerusalem Post, provides some perspective. New research claims that Prime Minister Begin had relatively no idea what the outcome of a strike on the Iraqi reactor would be, but chose to give the green light anyway. The immediate consequences paled in comparison to the long-term impact of Saddam Hussein's regime replete with nuclear warheads. Is this Israel's current thinking?
The Sunday Times, just this weekend, published a report that Ariel Sharon's inner cabinet granted initial authorization to taking out Iranian reactors, and the IAF has drawn up plans for a two-pronged air and ground strike. Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister at the time (he just resigned), stated in the Times' article that he believes that diplomacy is still the way to deal with the situation, but he warned: "The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world." We've heard rhetoric like this before. Are these vapid warnings? The IAF's "secret" strategy was leaked to the Times purely to let the Iranians know that Israel is waiting in the wings in case negotiations prove impotent. But will the Israeli government, which has so much on its plate already, actually go ahead with military action? The Begin Doctrine affirms the belief that Israel will do everything in its power to prevent a regional enemy, especially on the scale of current-day Iran, from attaining the bomb. But consider that Israeli elections are slated for late March, only two months away. Before Sharon's health detiorated, his new centrist party Kadima was a shoe-in for the premiership and about 40 to 44 (of a total 120) Knesset seats. Now that Sharon has departed from the political scene, it is even more difficult to forecast Israel's response to Iran. If Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud take over (which is not so likely), Israel will take a hard-line stance, undoubtedly following in the footsteps of Likud's founding father, Menachem Begin. If Amir Peretz, from the Labor Party, wins the election, no one can predict his behavior, since he has no experience in international affairs. Plus, combine this uncertainty with the uncertainty of Palestinian elections in a week, and what happens if Hamas garners a majority of the vote. What happens if Fatah is replaced by Hamas? How would Iran, and the specter of nuclear possibility, affect a Hamas-controlled West Bank and Gaza?
An Israeli attack on Iran would be a declaration of war that Israel could not win without the help of the United States, posits this week's Economist. Plus, Israel may not even be able to reach Iran without passing through American-controlled airspace. Could Americans stomach another Mideast conflict, with Bush's ratings at an all-time low and more and more soliders dying in Iraq? Probably not. Furthermore, to attack Iran would only make sense if its nuclear facilities were able to be detected. In 1981, Israel managed to delete all of Iraq's potential to create a nuclear weapon, but Iran has apparently scattered its facilities across the country, hiding them much more effectively than Sadaam Hussein managed to do. Where does that leave Israel? Military action is never an attractive option, particularly in this corner of the world. Diplomacy has not yet run its course, so Israel must exert its considerable influence on Capitol Hill and elsewhere to put as much pressure on Iran as possible. It has to say to the six nations meeting in London this week: Do this peacefully or else we'll do what we have to do. Maybe the world is merely waiting for Israel to do its dirty work and then will summarily condemn Israel for its bold action. Things here are always dangerous, always ready to erupt. No matter what happens, Israel is a crucial, if not always visible, member of this world dance with Iran.
~Clark Kent of The Baltimore Group