Monday, August 16, 2010

Will Israel really attack Iran within a year?

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/focus-u-s-a-will-israel-really-attack-iran-within-a-year-1.307211

Will Israel really attack Iran within a year?

Haaretz : 10.08.10

Focus U.S.A. / Will Israel really attack Iran within a year? After
interviewing dozens of Israeli, American and Arab officials, Atlantic
Magazine correspondent Natasha Mozgovaya concludes Israel may
not even ask for American 'green light' to attack Iran nuclear sites:
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/natasha-mozgovaya-1.493
http://www.haaretz.com/meta/Tag/Israel%20US

Israel might attack Iranian nuclear sites within a year, if Iran stays the
current course and the U.S. administration doesn't succeed in persuading
Israel's leadership that U.S. President Barack Obama is ready to stop Iran
by force if necessary, so argues Jeffrey Goldberg in Atlantic magazine's
September cover story, obtained by Haaretz ahead of publication.

Based on dozens of interviews the Atlantic correspondent conducted in recent
months with Israeli, American and Arab officials, Goldberg came to the
conclusion that the likelihood of an Israeli strike has crossed the 50
percent mark. And Israel might not even ask for the famous "green light"
from the U.S. - or even give couple of false pre-attack alerts, so that
Washington won't try to stop the unilateral operation.

"…one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and
the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone
their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that
their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one
hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force
to fly east toward Iran - possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia, possibly by
threading the border between Syria and Turkey, and possibly by traveling
directly through Iraq's airspace, though it is crowded with American
aircraft…," Goldberg paints a possible scenario.

The repercussions of such a strike, which could include the bombing of the
Iranian facilities in Natanz, Qom, Esfahan, and maybe even the Russian-built
reactor in Bushehr, are less than clear, despite the endless discussions and
several simulations. American experts speculate that attacking Iran's
nuclear facilities will only slightly delay the nuclear program, whereas
some Israelis, according to Goldberg, are a bit more optimistic, in light of
the successful Israeli operations against Iraqi and Syrian reactors in the
past.

The results might be dire: It's likely that the Israeli air force won't have
much time to waste in Iran, as Hezbollah will probably retaliate against
Israel in the North and the fighter jets will be needed there. The
unilateral operation might throw relations between Jerusalem and Washington
into an unprecedented crisis, and might even unleash full-scale regional war
with possible economic repercussions for the whole world, not to mention the
cost of human lives.

The timetable in this issue is an evasive one - the red lines were pushed
back again and again, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told New York
Times reporters this week: "Based on my conversations with allies, it's not
so much the timing of when or how the Iranians might pursue the nuclear
weapons, it's whether they do so. And so whether it would take six months, a
year, or five years, it's that deep concern about Iran acquiring nuclear
weapons that is the preoccupation of our friends and partners. And we would
be pursuing the path we're pursuing regardless of any issue of timing
because we think it's got the best potential for changing Iranian behavior."

According to Goldberg, for Israel the red lines are clear. The end of
December is Netanyahu's deadline to estimate the success of "non-military
methods to stop Iran."

And while Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, reminded Goldberg
that "the expression 'All options are on the table' means that all options
are on the table," - the Israeli interviewees repeatedly questioned Obama's
resolve to actually do it. Some even asked Goldberg if he thought the
American president was actually an anti-Semite, forcing the reporter to
explain that Obama is probably "the first Jewish President" – but not
necessarily Likud's idea of a Jew.

But the reply he got from one official was: "This is the problem. If he is a
J Street Jew, we are in trouble."

Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, stressed that "This
president has shown again and again that when he believes it is necessary to
use force to protect American national security interests, he has done so" -
but the Israeli government might need stronger assurances.

Israel is trying to convey the message not only through the official
channels - Israeli military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin
visited Chicago recently to meet with the billionaire Lester Crown, one of
Obama's supporters, and asked to him to convey Israel's concerns to the
American President, Goldberg reports.

"If the choice is between allowing Iran to go nuclear, or trying for
ourselves what Obama won't try, then we probably have to try," one senior
Israeli official told Goldberg. Basically, the Israeli military officials
agreed that it would be tough for Israel to do it alone – but on the other
hand, the conclusion is Netanyahu might well risk this operation and
alienation of his closest ally if he becomes convinced Iran's nuclear bomb
"represents a threat like a Shoah."

Goldberg delves into Netanyahu's relations with his father – the historical
lessons he learned from Ben-Zion Netanyahu – and his eagerness not to
disappoint him. He also offers a long list of Iran's verbal hostilities
toward Israel to remind his readers that Israel is not personally obsessed
with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"I once asked Ali Asghar Soltanieh, a leading Iranian diplomat who is now
Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, why the
leadership of Iran persistently described Israel not as a mere regional
malefactor but as a kind of infectious disease. 'Do you disagree?' he asked.
'Do you not see that this is true?'" Goldberg writes.

A recent poll conducted in six Arab countries
<http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/obama-s-popularity-dims-in-arab-world-1.306236>showed
a shift of opinion in favor of the Iranian nuclear weapon – views that the
Arab leadership clearly doesn't share with the street.

For Netanyahu, it's clear the bomb will not only strengthen Iran's proxies,
but will undermine Israel's status as a safe haven for Jews, embolden
terrorists all over the word, and make the Arab countries more reluctant to
make peace with Israel.

According to Goldberg, all the Arab officials he spoke to didn't think that
the U.S. administration truly understood Iran's ambitions. "The best way to
avoid striking Iran is to make Iran think that the U.S. is about to strike
Iran. We have to know the president's intentions on this matter. We are his
allies," one Arab minister told Goldberg.

Dennis Ross, special adviser to the U.S. president, told the Atlantic that
imposing sanctions on Iran could work, despite Israeli doubts, because the
Iranian government already faces public alienation. "They are looking at the
costs of trying to maintain control over a disaffected public. They wanted
to head off sanctions because they knew that sanctions would be a problem.
There is real potential here to affect their calculus. We're pursuing a path
right now that has some potential."

Last week, Obama unexpectedly joined a White House briefing for a small
group of senior reporters in Washington, raising questions whether he
intended to convey some new message to Iran or hint at some new initiative.
The accounts of the meetings were somewhat different, and the final
impression was that there still is no answer for the question, what
President Obama is ready to do if sanctions fail.

David Sanger, the New York Times reporter, heard from the White House
sources that during his latest visit to Washington Netanyahu didn't list
Iran as one of his top agenda items "whereas at the previous meetings when
he has come here, [Iran] was the number one, two, and three issue," on the
agenda, which might indicate that Netanyahu got some clear reassurances from
the U.S. administration.

No comments:

Post a Comment