The loose talk of war is back after a brief period of calm.
This is stunning, as the facts about Iran's nuclear program have not changed since negotiations over its nuclear program began in April. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it on the verge of acquiring one. The consensus view of American and Israeli intelligence agencies remains that Iran has not decided to make a nuclear weapon. And the pressure on Iran to back down has increased through the imposition of crippling sanctions while international negotiations proceed.
So what is the strategy behind all this war talk? Is Israel really planning to bomb Iran? We don't yet know the answer, but the impact of this type of saber rattling is decidedly negative.
Here's why:
First, it shifts the focus from Iran to Israel. Instead of maintaining the sole focus on Iran's nuclear program, the war talk creates unnecessary and unproductive impediments. Such threats create confusion between Israel and the international community, distracting Israel's allies and turning Iran into Israel's problem alone, rather than a shared challenge to the international community. Now, Israel's allies are spending their precious time prognosticating about Israel's intentions.
This is why Israeli leaders such as President Shimon Peres, former chiefs of Israel's army Shaul Mofaz and Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, former head of the spy agency Mossad Meir Dagan, former Obama administration Iran chief Dennis Ross, and leading pro-Israel columnist Jeff Goldberg have warned against Israeli strikes. They argue that an Israeli strike at this moment would unravel the international sanctions on Iran, spike oil prices and fail to achieve its main goal -- verifiably preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Second, it endangers Israeli security. Israel's deterrence -- essential to maintaining its security across the region by striking fear in the hearts of its adversaries -- is being weakened before our eyes. Talk of war has ironically created a public discussion about Israel's military capacities vis-à-vis Iran. As a result, we're now seeing a full public airing of Israel's military preparedness -- offensively and defensively -- to Israel's detriment. Even Gen. Martin Dempsey, chief of staff for the U.S. Armed Forces, recently felt compelled to publicly state that Israel could not eliminate Iran's nuclear capability on its own. This is a new dynamic for Israel, which prides itself on stealth and opacity. Instead, by pushing the idea of an Israeli strike, Israel is now exposing its military limitations to its adversaries, diminishing the exact fear of Israeli power that it is trying to create.
Third, it divides the Israeli population. Israelis are split on what should otherwise be a unifying issue. A majority of the population -- 61 percent according to a recent Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University poll -- opposes a unilateral strike against Iran without American backing. And the Israeli security establishment is also at odds with this approach. Lipkin-Shahak himself said "I assume that the decision makers have the same information as the heads of the security establishment ... [and so] I ask myself, how is it that the security officials and the politicians can arrive at such different conclusions?" Normally, Israelis have a shared view of Iran. Unfortunately, it is talk of war that is creating new divisions within Israeli society that would otherwise not exist.
Israelis understand the costs and uncertainties of war. They remember the Lebanon war, which lasted 18 years even though it was initially promised to last no more than several days. They witnessed the American war in Iraq, sold as an easy win to an uncertain public, only to become a vicious deathtrap, killing thousands and lasting almost nine years. They understand the dangers of being sold simple solutions to complex problems.
When it comes to unilateral military strikes against Iran, it is clear that Israelis are not all on board. As President Peres recently said, "Now, it's clear to us that we can't do it alone. We can delay (Iran's nuclear program). It's clear to us we have to proceed together with America. There are questions about coordination and timing, but as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone."
It's impossible to know what Israeli leaders will ultimately do. But it is clear that the talk of war is creating negative consequences both for Israel as it plots its next steps and for the international community's ability to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.
A strike right now would undermine the painstaking work that has taken place these past several years to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Israelis do not want to be opposite the United States on questions of war and peace. And many national security experts believe that military action may even hasten Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon.
So let's remember that as the talk of war mounts, there is another perspective: the pressure on Iran remains, talks are under way, and there is no new evidence demonstrating that Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons.
Now is the time for productive patience, not military strikes. After all, it's much easier to start a war than it is to end one.
This piece originally appeared in The Jewish Chronicle. The views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Ploughshares Fund.
Follow Joel Rubin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoelMartinRubin
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Do you know what Iran does to political opponents ? Women ? Ethnic and religious minorities ? They torture them first inside a cell as long as the prisoner can live.
The regime of Iran wants to be removed by Iranian people. Talk to any Iranian you know and you'll see how much they hate their regime.
If you believe in the right of a human being to live because he is a Jew or an Arab, or a secular Persian, you must support a strike on Iran. Iranian regime is hated by Arabs, Jews, and many Persians. Striking Iran is like striking Nazi Germany. If you're against it you are not deemed as a civilized person.
Support Civilized people or Extremists ? Make the choice.
There are many countries whose governments questionable behavior is not overlooked. Yet we can't overthrow every government we believe it committing human right violations.
There are many countries whose citizens don't care for the leadership....ours included....doesn't mean we can just go in and take them out of power. Could you imagine if Russia came in and overthrew Obama on behalf of the tea parties?!?
You need to make the choice to educate yourself before posting any more irrational comments.
Israel is a terrorist state.
There is no Iranian bomb.
Amadinajad said "..this Jerusalem occupying regime must be erased from the page of time.."
There are Jews in Iran. They have a seat in the parliament.
This is just another weapons of mass destruction which never existed and another 9/11 committed by Israel.
Israel would never attack Iran. They are cowards and they would have the whole Muslim world on their backs and not even the USA could handle that one.
You are attacking a Muslim state and there would be so many fatwas issued to kill those at the top what with over a billion Muslims it would be a bit too much to handle.
I agree with alot of what you had to say, except "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it on the verge of acquiring one". Yes, they do not have one as of yet, but they are indeed on the verge of having one". I would say within a year! Max
Here's a leaked out strategy... the US wants to redraw the map by annexing a large part of Iran (and it's oil fiels, off course) to Azerbeaijan.
"The U.S. State Department has confirmed receipt of a letter from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He proposed in the letter to support the idea of annexing Iranian Azerbaijan (northwest portion of Iran) to Azerbaijan, State Department spokesman said. As Victoria Nuland noted at a briefing, though Secretary of State replied to the letter, the details won’t be publicized."
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/120817/US_launches_campaign_on_annexing_Iranian_Azerbaijan_to_Azerbaijan
If Obama is re-elected, all bets are off. I don't think Bibi will be too welcome at the white House.
A flurry of bellicose rhetoric from some Israeli politicians this month has fanned speculation that Israel might hit Iran's nuclear sites before the U.S. presidential election in November.
Tensions rose another notch on the eve of Friday's talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) when diplomatic sources said Iran had installed many more uranium enrichment centrifuges at its Fordow underground site.
While the new machines are not yet operating, the move reaffirmed Iranian defiance of international demands on it to suspend enrichment and may strengthen the Israeli belief that toughened sanctions and concerted diplomacy are failing to make the Islamic Republic change course.
"The discussions today were intensive but important differences remain between Iran and the U.N. that prevented agreement," Herman Nackaerts, the IAEA's chief inspector, told journalists after about seven hours of talks with an Iranian delegation in Vienna.
"At the moment we have no plans for another meeting."
Little headway appeared to have been made on the IAEA's most urgent request -
Soltanieh, said that "undoubtedly some progress" was made but that differences remained.
1) "Iran does not have a nuclear weapon nor is it on the verge of acquiring one"
Not to worry, we'll just have to come up with something else then....
2) "61 percent -- opposes a unilateral strike against Iran without American backing"
Let's keep in mind what it says: "unlilateral without American backing" is a whole lot different than "61 percent of Israelis oppose a War with Iran"
3) "It's impossible to know what Israeli leaders will ultimately do."
Well, here's what they have done, they have meanwhile consulted with the highest spiritual leader, Ayatollah ... I mean, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, last week, to ask for his permission and blessing to attack Iran (which I assume is what usually happens in "western liberal democracies") , as I doubt they went there to ask him to perform a rain dance, and this weekend, the Spiritual Leader of the "only democracy" has urged the Israelis to pray for the annihilation of Iran.
Off course, well documented:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-defense-officials-consult-with-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-over-iran-strike.premium-1.459547
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/shas-spiritual-leader-calls-on-jews-to-pray-for-annihilation-of-iran-1.460765
It is especially interesting to read what the rabbi wants people to pray for. Quote:
"“When we say ‘may our enemies be struck down’ on Rosh Hashana, it shall be directed at Iran, the evil ones who threaten Israel. God shall strike them down and kill them,” said Yosef."
The annihilation of Iran means the annihilation of roughly 75 million Iranians. That is outrageous, and I cannot see any difference to demands for "push Israel into the sea", as we have heard before. And that man is considered a spiritual leader?
This same man according to Haaretz "has stirred controversy by likening Palestinians to snakes, calling for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to "perish from this world" and describing non-Jews as "born only to serve us"."
One can only shrug at this, ignore this man like other extremists, and not deal with anyone politically who listens to this guy.