Charles Levinson reports in the Wall Street Journal that Israelis are debating the possibility of a unilateral, preemptive, military strike against Iran.
Such divisions have played into fears in Israel that if Washington's sanctions effort fails, the Israeli and American positions on Iran could rapidly diverge—and Israel, if it chooses to attack Iran, would have no choice but to do so on its own.
A senior U.S. official said the U.S. has stated to Israel its opposition to unilateral Israeli action, but that there were still fears within the administration that Israel could strike Iran despite Washington's objections. Some Israeli officials worry a unilateral strike would cause a break with Washington that would threaten Israeli national interests even more than a nuclear-armed Iran.
Levinson shares with Israeli military discussions about whether or not such an attack would have any fundamentally effects on Israel’s relationship with the US, and if there might be any serious unintended side-effects, and consequences that couldn't be "easily managed."
While we should be encouraged to see attempts to anticipate the consequences of a pre-emptive military strike, should we not also be more than a little concerned that so many don't agree that Israel needs Washington's or anyone elses approval?
"We don't have permission and we don't need permission from the U.S.," says Ephraim Sneh, who served as deputy minister of defense under former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
It's important to remember that under the most common, majority interpretation of international law, and according the the rules of the UN, such unilateral, pre-emptive attacks are illegal, without the pre-approval of the UN Security Counsel. Some may remember the controversy surrounding Collin Powell's efforts to recieve this for the Bush Administration's use of the radical Bush Doctrine before we attacked Iraq.
Many Israeli military experts say Israel can easily cope with any military retaliation by Iran in response to a strike. Iran's medium-range rockets would cause damage and casualties in Israel, but they aren't very accurate, and Israel's sophisticated missile-defense system would likely knock many out midflight. Israel has similarly proved it can handle attacks against Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel also hosts a contingent of U.S. troops attached to a radar system to help give early warning against incoming rocket attacks.
More worrying to Israeli strategic planners examining possible attack scenarios is the possibility that Iran would respond to an Israeli attack by ramping up support to groups battling U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to recently retired officials familiar with the military's thinking on Iran. If American soldiers start dying in greater numbers as a result of an Israeli unilateral attack, Americans could turn against Israel.
Iran could also disrupt the world's oil supply by cutting off exports through the Persian Gulf, roiling international oil markets.
"What will Americans say if Israel drags the U.S. into a war it didn't want, or when they are suddenly paying $10 a gallon for gasoline and Israel is the reason for it," says retired Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom, former director of the Israeli army's Strategic Planning Division.
If Iran retaliates by blowing up Kharg Island, thereby cutting off access to 40% of the worlds oil, starts global terrorist attacks against US and Israeli citizens, as well as business travelers, encourages anti-American riots in all Islamic and Arab countries, "$ 10 a gallon oil" will be the least of our problems, IMO.
Consequent depression of world trade, spiking interest rates, global financial disruptions, and disruption of global travel and trade could throw the US, and world into a economic depression that would make our recent troubles look like a tame warm up practice. Additionally, Al Qaeda's terrorists are like backwoods hillbillies compared to Iran's extensive professionally trained intelligence operatives, who are also fully equipped with advanced modern military equipment. A few years ago I reviewed an extensive NYT article on how extensive and devastating this scenario could be, which I will try to dig up to contribute to discussions.
Also, we must consider the implications for the institutions of international law. Do we still support the Bush Doctrine, the policy that any country is free to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive military attack on another nation if it feels as if it's future might be threatened? One reason I switch my primary support to President Obama was his strong articulation of a re-committment to International Rule of Law, The Geneva Conventions, and the governance of the United Nations.
If Israel strikes Iran, and we veto any UN sanctions, many will be concerned that we are undermining and disempowering the legitimacy of the UN, as well as International Law.
Are we all still fully committed to our current national security strategy of trying to convince other countries and terrorists, that a complete global committment to the rule of law is better than a "might makes right - law of the jungle" approach to international relationships?
At least, the Bush Administration went through a pretend Kubucki dance of getting the approval of the United Nations, and even then many of us here spent the better part of a decade railing against these violations of the UN Charter, The Geneva Convention, etc. If Israel does this, it risks becoming number on the list of pariah nations.
According the the State Department we are no longer supposed to use the term "roque nation, but the new improved term "outlier nation." (A welcome departure by the late Bush Administration State Department, from Bush's ealier "Axis of Evil Nations."
Apparently, Isreali is already on the "outlier" list for it's refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Joining company with North Korea, Pakistan, and India.)
But, it is difficult to imagine how the rest of the world's nations will react, to what will be seen as a major assault on the tradition of "the international rule of law) after we've all been trying to repair the traditions of "rule of law," after the Bush Administrations assualts.
Does anyone remember last year when many warned that the Neocons were not going away. Well, here we go again.
The experts described here seem to be vastly under-estimating the cost the US, World, and even Israel might pay in a World War III like scenario. In my opinion, we need more discussion about the consequences, and who pays them, as well as to what extent we want to remain committed to International Law, The Geneva Conventions, and be bound by the UN Charter. And what will we do in response to nations that violates them.
Also now that some in the American Jewish community have started the "Jews For Sarah Palin" political action committee, and others are rallying efforts to replace Democrats with Republican's this November to undermine President Obama's pressures on Israel to rejoin the peace talks, such discussion is right down the center of the plate, for our efforts to elect more and better Democrats.
To put my own biases up front, I should share that I strongly support President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton's new foriegn policy emphasis, and I also fully support Israel's right to exist, consider myself to be pro-Israel. although I am not as enthusiastic about Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party. My support is greater for the Kadima and Labor Parties, and more for J-Street than AIPAC.
I further believe the right-most wings of the Likud government are risking driving Israel off a cliff, and we need to find ways to make stronger links to more moderate elements in Israel to learn how to create better options to dealing with the threats.
But, this is such as vastly complicated set of issues and nations, that I will confess in advance that I don't feel I adequately understand it, am not an expert, and apoligize in advance for any errors, or offensiveness that my quick style of writing might have created. I value hearing the opinions are those that disagree, and those who believe we need a much sharper, and coordinated response against Iran, or violent extremists and such folks should feel free to share their views here as well.
I highly value and respect all of our diverse Jewish Democratic voters, and DKOS members. We need to keep all of us keep working to forge better mutually understandings, in order to keep our winning Democratic Coalition alive and thriving.
I am concerned that American neocons, and other right-wing opportunists are trying to use these issues to divide us, so my hope is that we can eventually help contribute to the continuous improvement towards the goals of the best possible Democratic foreign and national security policies that will help us in the November elections.
I will publically commit myself here, to keep learning as much as I can to achieve those goals, and if anyone sees me express any ideas that are not consistent with these goals, please let me know and I will try to correct and improve them until we reach our goals of peaceful, safe, health, and economically thriving global social and economic system.
Please feel free to share you opinions freely in these comments. I have to run some errands but will be back soon.