Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

Wall Street Journal:

Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state.
By BRET STEPHENS

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.

What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran.

In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done.

The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention.

But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.

Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

2 comments:

WC said...

Let's look at the consequence of an Israeli strike.

I don't agree it will start a mid-east war. What Iran will do is to use it's proxies to annoy Israel. Iran is too far away to respond militarily so it will use it's proxies - Hamas and Hezbollah and we've seen how Israel has dealt with them in the past. They will attack Gaza and Lebanon, therer will be a nashing of teath from teh world community, and life will go on.

If Iran even thinks it can make trouble for us in Iraq wit our hundreds of thosuadns wel pace troops - they will be in for a nasty awakening.

Then we have the Straights. If they try and block them it won' t be for long. read - US NAVY and most probably most of Europe and China.
And if they think they could use the sleeper jihadists in this country to a make trouble - well, I wouldn't want to be a Muslim or Muslim org in this country.

Well, that about covers it.

Epaminondas said...

WC, if u r correct then Iran is sensible ULTIMATELY, and can be deterred and there is no need for an attack, for they will have been deterred from attacking our interests and assets while a Barack Obama is prez.

Of course that is the big question.
Not if Obama can deter them but if ANYTHING can.

IMHO, the Hizballah catzpaw being an annoyance only would ENCOURAGE Israeli attacks

A real Hizballah attack = all out regional war and would inevitably go to Iranian attacks on american interests at a minimum if not american troops or naval bases (so they can affect the strait of hormuz)

OTOH .. if they are who we think they are..any Israeli attack is the excuse they have waited for to execute god's plan to end the cancerous tumor and finally put the great satan where it belongs and no matter what the odds look like on paper, god will guide them to success

If the Israelis attack and there is a feeble response Iran will have been completely exposed. Netanyahu puts his foot all the way to the floor and goes for broke. Sharon goes to Beirut. Dayan takes the Sinai AND the west bank.

I can't see any way an attack would not end up with gas at $8-10/gallon. I can't see anyway that europe acts ... physically I am not sure they have the assets to do so.

More, the intellectual elite in Iran FAR FROM BEING SANGUINE about deterrence is convinced as have been many others that they can keep on pushing because of the natures of our societies and be successful

JUST

consider

what their equivalent of Kissinger and Wolfowitz and Feith has to say