Veteran foreign policy pundit Leslie Gelb taps into an uncomfortable truth today when he writes in the Daily Beast about the unspoken agendas at play in the debate about how to stop a nuclear Iran. As Gelb puts it, both the Obama administration and the Islamist regime in Iran are employing a common tactic as well as a shared goal in their diplomatic maneuverings in the dispute about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Both are doing their best to pretend there is a serious chance for substantive negotiations on the nuclear issue. And both are doing so because their priority is not so much to actually resolve the issue but to prevent Israel from attacking Iran. Given that President Obama has been escalating his rhetoric about his determination to stop Iran’s plans, this is a shocking charge, since it casts everything Washington is saying on the subject in a cynical light. The problem though is Gelb is almost certainly right.
Gelb stipulates that the common agenda between Washington and Tehran does not mean they are acting in concert. The lines of communication between the two governments are so tenuous that such collaboration would be impossible even if suspicion between them were not so intense. But the priority for both is to be able to postpone any resolution of the issue. Obama’s hope is that by holding out the prospect sanctions will bring Tehran to heel, he can exert sufficient leverage on Israel in order to prevent them from attacking Iran. Such an attack would unleash a host of unforeseen circumstances that might upset his re-election plans. Similarly, the ayatollahs would like to give just enough room for talks about talks in order to play for more time to continue developing their weapon plans. Yet, because it is painfully obvious sanctions will not work and the only point of negotiations would be to allow Iran to run out the clock on their nuclear timetable, the push to put off any attack appears to be tantamount to a concession that the West and Israel will have to live with a nuclear Iran.
An attack on Iran by Israel would be a perilous undertaking, so it is not surprising Israel’s government has not made up its mind about making such a decision. However, both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak understand that even if the West undertakes a complete oil embargo of Iran sometime later this year that would not guarantee Tehran would wave the white flag on its nuclear plans. They also know the longer they wait the chances for a successful strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities will diminish.
But the biggest factor influencing their decision will be their level of trust in President Obama’s promises on Iran. The administration has done little to inspire confidence in their sanctions plan due to the reluctance with which they have pursued the project. The Israelis know Obama’s default position will always be a preference for negotiations even if talks with Iran are not merely doomed to failure but will actually serve the Islamist regime’s purpose of delaying action.
Even more worrisome is that the administration’s determination to squelch unilateral action by Israel seems to be greater than its alarm about Iran. Hence, the multiple statements by American defense and military figures seeking to throw cold water on the idea of an attack on Iran may have had the opposite effect on Israel than Obama intended. Rather than convince them to listen to the Americans’ advice and rely on their diplomatic tactics to stop Iran, they may have instead persuaded Netanyahu and Barak that Obama has no intention of ever taking action. While Obama must continue to insist an Iranian nuke is a non-starter while he is running for re-election, the Israelis understand the White House may be singing a far different tune next January once Obama’s lease on the premises is extended for another four years.
Like Gelb, the Israelis may well believe Obama’s show of concern about Iran and his notion that sanctions and diplomacy will avert that nuclear threat is mere playacting whose only purpose is to put them off. The question facing Netanyahu and Barak is whether they are prepared to play along with Obama while hoping a delay will not prove fatal to their country’s security.
Iran faces a delicate issue. On the one hand it wants to show the world all it’s got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show 'n tell will give its enemies a roadmap to bomb it. nSaddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing Iraq still had WMD. nBluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Ahmadinejad. nBut since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved high, maybe we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now. On the eve of a threatened attack, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it's got. nSuch great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal? n“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel.” nTrue, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either. nSurely, however, we can see beyond the hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose. Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Ahmadinejad? nHe sure hasn’t forgotten. nNor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It is even a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by his theocratic regime. nQuite clever work by Ahmadinejad — and not a rial spent or a bullet fired. nSo why are we letting the crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up — to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again. nCan we not see the desperate attempts of an unpopular regime simply trying to hold on?
As French President Sarkozy, the most pro-Israel French leader in decades recently stated: "Diplomacy is the ONLY option to resolve the Iranian situation. So, why is Commentary, AIPAC, The Israel Lobby, et. al. pushing so hard for WAR? Because they're heedless of the consequences and think they've got the U.S. Congress in their back pocket. They don't care if another 9/11 occurs, if thousands of Israelies die, if Jews and Jewish instituitions around the world are targeted. They think they're invincible and they can blow up the world at will. We'll see.
No one is pushing for war. That's the last thing any country wants. Good heavens, man. Get a grip. n nWhat those who write about the situation want is for Iran to 1) open its facilites to international inspection and 2) stop building nuclear weaponry, not necessarily in that order. (I'm sure there are other points, but these two are the main ones). n nAs far as Sarkozy's statement goes, diplomacy has been tried for years and for the longest time the G-3 was played by the Iranians to stall for time as stated by one of their main diplomats to the negotiations. No one is seriously using diplomacy these days, certainly not the Iranians. They're laughing all the way to the threshold.
"…trust in President Obama"? Oh, PLEASE! Stop deluding yourself into thinking that Obama can be trusted at all. One day he tells AIPAC that Jerusalem will remain Israel's undivided capital. The next day "everything is on the table." n nThe only question is: CAN the Israelis inflict fatal damage on Iran's deeply buried and widely dispersed nuclear project? Barring myserious explosions that level whole building complexes…or a Stuxnet 2 worm that totally destroys all of Iran's centrifuges…the answer, unfortunately, is "very unlikely," if not an outright "no." n nBut once again, PLEASE don't use "trust" and "Obama" in the same sentence. Have you learned NOTHING from his years in office? Clearly you have not.
I've posted this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. n nDuring the Cold War, the Soviets appointed Andrei Grechko to command Soviet ground forces. He scared the bejesus out of NATO because Grechko was a hardline communist unafraid to go nuclear. In response, JFK made Curtis Lemay Air Force chief of staff. Lemay was regarded, especially by the Soviets, as somewhere between Gen. Jack D. Ripper and Gen. James Mattoon Scott on the sanity scale, with his finger on the button. n n"Nikita, I have LeMay here, and he's about to blow his stack. Don't know if I hold him, unless you back down." n nSo, here's the situation now, from the Iranians' perspective: n nThe Europeans are hardening sanctions, while the Americans are trying their best to rein in those crazy Israelis. Meanwhile, the Fifth Fleet is standing by. (Note, that while the Russians and Chinese oppose sanctions and attacking Iran, neither have they threatened retaliation for either, and certainly not against Israel.) n nSo, although Jonathan is reflexively troubled by Obama's soft talk, he seems to be ignoring the big stick waving over the Iranians. n
By the way, if Israel attacks Iran, is Syria any longer in a position to back Iran's play? And is Syria any longer to be a conduit of Iranian support for Hezbollah? The time may be ripe. Iran has much to think about.
Our dear President is doing everything to undermine Israel including not taking the sanctions which many months ago would have forced Iran to rethink the purpose of her goal. nIn the mean time Iranian terrorism is all over the world and at the gates of the US, in MEXICO! nShame on HIM.
Reducing the issues to a minimum, Obama is a Muslim-firster, and a candidate-seconder. There, that simplifies everything!
The United States Government does not speak with one voice. Is that true. While the US Congress applauded PM Netanyahu’s peformance, there is a network of rank and file ex this and ex that, who are rooting for Iran. They want to see Israel get beaten up to a pulp and they describe it in details too vivid to repeat here. Some of those people are advisers to The President. Samantha Power is just one of many. When Ron Paul drops out of the Republican race, you can expect to see a good portion of his support to go to Obama as the next best candidate to stick it to Israel. I think Mr. Tobin’s point is entirely in place, unfortunately.
I would respectfully like to be the first one to advise Prime Minister Netanyahu, for his upcoming meeting with President Obama on March 5th, to demand Jonathan Pollard be released from the Butner Federal Prison immediately, with no delay whatsoever. Pollard’s release should be made a pre-condition for entering into substantive discussion related to Israel plans. Then you can explain how The US has been duped again and thereby help The US to help Israel do what needs to be done.Whatever that is.
Oh yes, and Bibi, my friend, get it in writing this time.