As Israelis and their government continue to debate the merits of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the contempt for American foreign policy realists for the idea the Jewish state might decide to act in its own defense is considerable. Contempt for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to be the primary motivation for the latest missive for James Traub, one of the realists leading writers, that appeared in Foreign Policy on Friday. Rather the focus on the “zone of immunity” that many Israelis and others worried about the nuclear threat believe Iran may be entering as its stockpiles get larger and are stored in invulnerable bunkers, Traub is more interested in what he calls, as the title of the piece puts it, the “zone of insanity.” As far as he is concerned Netanyahu and Barak are nuts to even think about acting without the permission of the United States.
But the answer to Traub’s points comes in his own column. Even the Obama administration now understands diplomacy and sanctions have failed. The only possible diplomatic solution is to agree to a compromise lauded by Traub that would leave Iran’s nuclear project intact. Under these circumstances, it is fair to ask who’s insane: The foreign policy realists who have been wrong about just about everything about the Middle East for decades and who now expect Israel to wait patiently for Iran to go nuclear or Netanyahu, who understands all too well that the Israel-hating ayatollahs mean what they say about eliminating Israel. If these purveyors of conventional wisdom are now counseling further inaction or more feckless diplomacy, that’s good reason for Israelis to think hard and long about attacking Iran soon.
Traub believes, not without reason, that the recent flurry of leaks and open talk of an Israeli attack are motivated by a desire in Jerusalem to force the hand of the Obama administration. The president’s current strategy about Iran is to kick the can down the road until after the November election. If re-elected, he may then have the “flexibility” to back down from his pledges not to accept or “contain” a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu may hope the threat of an Israeli attack may motivate the president to obligate the United States to use force sooner rather than later as attempts to talk Iran off the ledge continue to fail.
Realists oppose such red lines. They also dispute the veracity of recent reports of a new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate revising previous erroneous rulings about Iran giving up the quest for nuclear weapons. But if they claim supporters of a tougher policy on Iran endorse such a conclusion because they want to raise the pressure on Tehran, those who oppose action are arguing the new NIE is non-existent because that suits their pre-existing notions about what should be done. But even Jeffrey Lewis, another realist, wrote in Foreign Policy two days earlier specifically to cast doubt about the intelligence about Iran, concedes that there is no doubt the Iranians have already done work towards nuclear weaponization but claims it’s merely old news and nothing to get excited about.
Traub, almost in passing, also mocks those who have written about the depth of the anti-Semitism of the Iranian regime and chortles about Netanyahu’s endorsement of such columns. But the day Traub’s piece was published, Iran held its annual Al Quds day in which millions were turned out to chant “death to Israel” and the country’s leaders competed with each other as to who would make the most extreme statements about the elimination of the Jewish state. Iran’s government, media and religious institutions (all of which are under the thrall of the ayatollahs) are drenched in Jew-hatred and routinely spew hateful rhetoric. Iran also is the major sponsor of terror groups that kill Jews and Israelis whenever they can. Yet realists seem to think talk about such topics is irrelevant to the question of allowing Iran to go nuclear or the urgency of acting before it is too late.
The dangers that an attack on Iran would present to Israel and the world are real. But having been as wrong about the Palestinians’ desire for peace as they are about Iran’s willingness to back away from the nuclear abyss, the realists have no credibility to bring into this argument. Israelis do well to worry about the implications of acting on their own but Traub’s efforts to minimize the risks of doing nothing ring hollow in the ears of those tasked with defending the existence of the Jewish state.
If they are serious about persuading Israel to stand down, realists like Traub would do better to pressure President Obama to start acting like he means business about Iran rather than obviously signaling that he doesn’t. Neither the Iranians nor the Israelis believe the president wants to do anything but avoid making a decision on this most dangerous foreign policy dilemma. But until their minds are changed, Traub’s jibes at Netanyahu will continue to ring hollow.
Street criminals are becoming empowered by a magical chant as they commit their crimes. Rapists, muggers, and murderers are shouting ALLAHU AKBAR as they bloody their victims. Those that hear those magical words must reach for their weapons or flee for their lives.
several years ago, Israel proactively bombed Syria's nuclear reactors. at the time, there was similar huffing and puffing about how this would only delay the inevitable, etc etc. n nis anybody unhappy that Syria doesn't have nuclear capabilities now? I think not.
n nAll the goodwill and concessions to eh Arab/Muslim world, enacted by Israeli leaders to satisfy the likes of Traub and others, have brought her 50,000 missiles on the Northern border, an Islamist Egypt reneging on a peace treaty at her southern border, and genocidal savages who are the world's pet human development project in Gaza. n nAnd now, they would have her suck up atomic weapons in the hands of a genocidal Persian regime too. n nBut I'm sure Traub knows better than Netanyahu. After all, Netanyahu is only the 'insane' elected Prime Minister of of the miraculously successful state of Israel, architect of her economic ascendance, and decorated former special forces soldier, while Traub is a Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation. n nThank God Israel is a sovereign, doesn't have to listen to all the mavens explaining why she is wrong, and doesn't have current leaders who try to please the Tom Friedmans and James Traubs of the world. n n
First of all Traub and his cohorts, including former ss(sec of state) James Baker, (who I have read has Romney’s ear, how alarming and disturbing if true) are not realists at all, they are fantacists, so why Jonathan, do you fall for their twisted semantics? The same is true with the so called “Palestinians” or “the peace camp” or “progressives” who are still pressuring Israel to end that terrible “occupation”, occupation my ass.
I think I am a progressive when I suggest Israel terminate every terrorist proactively.
We all know that there are certain Jews who are deathly afraid that Prime Minister Netanyahu's efforts on behalf of his peoples' safety will give Pat Buchanan types enough ammunition to charge that once again Israel is dragging the U.S. into a foreign conflict. It's so terrifying to them that they're willing to wager the lives of every Israeli man, woman and child on their half-baked conclusion that the Iranian danger is not as great as feared.
I am wondering if an Israeli strike at Iran isn’t just the kind of briar patch Brer Obama is hoping for, while he publicly continues to protest and to work against it all the time. It would make moot his completely feckless and doomed “strategy” of diplomacy and pointless sieve-like sanctions. It would not just supplant all of Obama’s idiotic “look, a squirrel” campaign nonsense; it would drown out most of the 2012 campaign rhetoric all together. And best of all, Obama could get another chance to show what a great leader [form behind] he is. I would not be surprised if he is actually helping and hoping such a strike to occur. And if Israel gets destroyed in the process, it will be no skin off of Obama's back, or so he hopes and assumes.
They see no credible evidence that Iran is weaponizing. Quelle surprise! It's a secret, dummies.
After three and half years, Obama's actions suggest that he's definitely not pro-Israel and I will not be voting for him in 2012. Obama may let Iran obtain nuclear weapons which may be used against Israel in the future. I could not live with myself knowing that by voting for Obama, I aided and abetted in the destruction of the Jewish People. My hands will not be dripping with Jewish blood! Also, can anyone imagine the pressure placed on Israel in an Obama second term without Obama having to answer to the electorate given his actions and behavior in his first term towards Israel ??!! Just close your eyes and think this thought: after Obama's victory in November/2012, Obama's policy of 'nuclear prevention' towards Iran becomes a 'containment policy' towards Iran. Is the fate of Israel and the Jewish People worth this possible risk ?? Obama's actions have turned a lot of Democratic Jews into supporters for Romney and voters for Romney in the 2012 election. n
The neocons (as opposed to the realists) of course, are always right. Ken "Iraq will be a Cakewalk" Adelman and Richard "The Iraqis will throw garlands at our feet" Peeled would certainly agree. It's just hard to figure out what French President Sarkozy meant when he said he couldn't stand the liar Netamyahu. Netanyahu claims that Iran is a souped-up version of Basically Germany and a Second Shoshone is about to begin. Hysterical Lies are simply not in the nature of the man.
The last two times Israel struck there was no retaliation and very little international reaction. The anti Israel media is cooking up the usual manufactured outrage, but when you really get down to it, no one is going to hate Israel for attacking those trying to destroy it. It is just to stupid a position to push post facto.
The worst part about this is that Israel must contemplate the most risky military operation of her history, while having to deal with the fact that she has no de facto major power allies at all, at least while Obama is still in office. Ideally, through "cloak and dagger' methods, Israel could slow down Iran's program enough to be able to put off a strike until Romney is in office. But Iran's progress on her program/'hardening of defenses are going to be the real drivers of an Israeli decision. n nObama may really want to defang Iran's nuke program – for Saudia's sake, not Israel's – but the threat of a nuclear Iran is his main point of leverage against Israel, so as to force them to concede to Palestinian demands. A successful independent Israeli strike would spoil his plan for forcing a suicidal "peace agreement" down Israel's throat, which is Obama's top foreign policy priority. n n
There are many ways in which Obama could punish Israel for her "defiance", some of which I'm sure are not made public, but are privately transmitted to Netanyahu. Obama could easily be so treacherous as to make it impossible for an Israeli strike to succeed, and a failed Israeli strike would be the worst possible scenario. Thus, Netanyahu, in planning a possible strike before the election or during Obama's "lame duck" period, has to not only overcome Iran's defenses, but also deal with potential U.S. obstacles thrown up by Obama. n nSome have commented above that they won't support Obama in 2012 for fear of having the blood of innocent Jews on their hands. Sadly, the fact of Obama winning in 2008 may already mean it is too late, and those who supported him then will have such blood on their hands in any event. I hope i'm wrong, but this unfolding situation literally keeps me awake nights.
If Israel attacks iran there will be total pandamonium here and across the world. israels short term thinking and belliegerence is out of place in the 21st century. No one is going to let this slide. There will be worldwide revolutions that will make the arab spring look like current day OWS. just my 2 cents!
The details of an Israeli attack on Iran are revealed in Jonathan Bloomfield’s book, “Palestine.”