Netanyahu and Threat of Bombing Iran -- The Bluff that Never Stops Giving?

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will. Not surprisingly, the interview sparked quite a controversy and only a day later, General David Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."

So once again, in spite of President Obama's best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into "Do as we say -- or else..." Even if the president wants to give diplomacy a chance, disbelievers have been quick to limit Obama's options by seeking to set arbitrary deadlines for negotiations -- or by threatening Israeli military action if America doesn't act with its military might.

Reality is, however, that talk of an Israeli military option is more of a bluff than a threat -- but it is a bluff that never seems to stop giving.

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years -- without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities -- and its limits.

Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed -- it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

In the Iranian case, Netanyahu's tough talk undermines the Obama administration's prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.

Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other's intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran's perspective, uncertainty about Washington's intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran.

Today, talk of Israeli strikes has similar effects. Tehran has repeatedly failed to appreciate the policy differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, oftentimes seeing them as either a perfectly coordinated team or as a single entity. Consequently, explicit or implicit threats of Israeli military action reduce Tehran's confidence in Washington's intentions.

Furthermore, Iran's sense of a threat from the US (and in extension Israel) is believed to be one of the driving forces of Iran's nuclear program. Whether Iran seeks a weapon or a civilian program that provides Iran with a weapons capability, the program's existence provides Tehran with a level of deterrence against the perceived US threat. The Obama administration's approach seems to have been to reduce Iran's sense of threat in order to kick-start negotiations. The threat of Israeli military action does the opposite -- it fuels Iranian insecurity and closes the window for diplomacy.

Moreover, Israel uses this threat to pressure Washington and the EU to act tough. This has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy towards Iran since the mid-1990s. Even though Israel is reluctant to put itself on the frontline against Iran, fearing that this would counter its message that Iran is the world's and not just Israel's problem, it also fears that the absence of Israeli pressure would cause the West to go soft on Iran. Hence, Israel keeps the pressure on the West -- by threatening military action - in order for the West to keep pressuring Iran. However, under the current circumstances, Israeli pressure may compel the Obama administration to adopt a confrontational approach that is incompatible with the diplomatic strategy President Obama seems to prefer.

Finally, Netanyahu -- as well as hawks in Washington -- are using the threat of Israeli military action to create arbitrary deadlines for negotiations with Tehran combined with exaggerated expectations of what diplomacy must achieve. The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy "a few months," meaning that whatever sanctions and confrontation has failed to achieve with Iran in the past 30 years, must miraculously be obtained after only a few months of negotiations -- otherwise Israel will take military action.

This logic does two things. First, it brings us back to the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration in which diplomacy was treated with suspicion and skepticism, and military confrontation was viewed as a policy option with guaranteed success. Second, it ensures that diplomacy fails by denying it the time and space it needs to succeed and by setting the bar too high.

This does not mean that Israel does not have legitimate reasons to fear Iran's nuclear advances -- on the contrary. But what lies at the heart of Israel's maneuvers is not necessarily the fear of a nuclear clash, but the regional and strategic consequences nuclear technology in Iranian hands will have for Israel.

In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.

The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.

This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.

Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.

Netanyahu's threat of stopping Iran if Obama doesn't should be seen in light of the Israeli rights's fear of a US-Iran deal. Talk of Israeli military action has not coincided with major advances in Iran's nuclear program, but rather with hints of an American preparedness to strike a compromise with Tehran that would grant it the dreaded know-how and limit Israel's strategic maneuverability.

The flaw in the Netanyahu's approach, however, is its underestimation of how US-Iran diplomacy can significantly alter Iran's posture towards the Jewish state and reduce the threat it faces from Tehran. Therein lies the opening for Israel's new prime minister that carries far greater promise for Israel's security than efforts to complicate Washington's path towards diplomacy.

Comments

[betz55]

Israel and the AIPAC driven fear mongering that is allowed to happen in the US media are the ones trumpeting the so called Iran threat. Iran and Ahmadinejad are no threat to the US.

The US needs to stop the foreign policy hypocrisy. Israel pre-emptively invades their neighbors, Iran does not.

Demonizing and warmongering for Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iran 'issue' is 100% Israeli.

Unlike Iran, Israel simply has too much to hide and wants to keep it that way.

When is Israel going to sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections ? Which Iran has done.

The US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.

America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric towards Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.

Tehran and Isarel did business during the 1980"s, when Isarels interest was in weakening Saddam Hussein"s Iraq. That business " including sales of weapons and technology " was an extension of Israeli policy toward Iran under the shah.

When Iranian nukes are mentioned the double standard with Isarel should be immedietly pointed out.

[tgmy]

Jim Jones couldn't have come up with a better Mid East policy for the U.S. than the Neocon-Zionists have. Drink the Kool Aid!

[danielet]

I canot overstate my admiration for Parsi, having read his book THREE TIMES and all his articles. The young man really understands the Iran-Israel bluff game. Both countries know eachother well and both are full of courageous young soldiers but rulled by crooked old bluffs who don't want war. Right now both are in a Habuki dance to settle in with eachother as nuclear powers that will stabilize the Middle East-- mini-MAD. Neither knows what the other should do nor what it itself should do. Neither wants war. Netanayahu is the last of Israel's BIG BOYS-- the men who realizes that Israel can only survive as a member of the Mideast rather than as a knuckle on some imaginary NATO fist. But there are a lot of crazies among Israeli politicians-- JUST AS IN IRAN. Stick with Parsi. That kid works hard, has good info and reads the historic momentum very carefully. Goldberg, on the other hand, is one of those fat neocon Zionists who urges others to do the fighting. Parsi is an academic who is responsible and realist (rare among academics) and appreicates Netanyahu well. Netanyahu wants an Israel free from US dole and well plugged into Mideast security, stability, economic development and integration. But for now he has to keep the Zio-crazies on his side while he negotiaties secretly, as Israel-Iran have done for decades.

[OneCharmingBastard]

Ah Bibi - as a friend of mine once said, he's Dick Cheney with charisma. But the author is spot on - Israel is freaking out because without US $$$, they are a South Africa-style time-bomb of social revolution waiting to happen.

Possible? Israel is just as captive to their thugs and hawks as the USA was for those eight years? You know, we ALL weren't war-mongering hawks, maybe they are in the same boat we were - one can only hope.

[Discipulus04]

the realities of this analysis is insignificant so far as Israel is concerned

[msfsi]

A very well written article. Thank you

[Soori]

Very well written article – thank you.

Unfortunately, U.S. is paying a high cost for its unconditional support of Israel's misadventures in the Middle East (putting it very, very mildly) politically, diplomatically, economically and from a reputation point of view.

Israel will stand as an obstacle for any diplomatic opening between the U.S. and Iran in order to further isolate both nations from one another; while it continues to demonize Iran and use its typical victim card of "existential threat". And unfortunately, the U.S. Administration keeps going along with Israel.


Israel can’t continue to keep the Palestinians in a stateless position, with absolutely no rights of citizenship, no legal status of any kind and expect no reactions from the Palestinians. Israel cannot continue to threaten Iran with military attacks and have the U.S. go along with its position and not expect Iran to feel insecure and mistrustful of U.S agenda toward her.

At some point the Obama Administration has to stop using this motto of "change" and "reaching out" and match its words with real action in order to break this 30 year diplomatic impasse with Iran and solve the Palestinian issue.

For once the U.S. has to stand in front of Israel’s abuse of power and its hold on U.S. foreign policy. This is the only way that the U.S. can save Israel from itself and bring peace to the Middle East

[StMTraveler]

Dr. Parsi, I fully agree with the content of your article.

We hope this cooperation between USA and Iran in Afghanistan would continue to the other tension areas of the Middle East. Iran in the past had stated that the affairs of the Palestinians relation with Israel are basically a Palestinians. Many expect that Iran would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many suggest that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel. Israel has created obstacles between Iran and USA relation. This problem is not new, even under Shah Iran had problem with Israel. Please listen to what Shah had to say about this issue:
http://www.geocities.com/usasaintmichael/ShahLobby.htm

In my opinion, the steps required to stabilize the Middle East are:
1. Creating an independent Palestinian state;

2. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consortium in Iran; we should join the consortium to actively monitor the operation. IAEA has been actively monitoring the Iranian enrichment process.

3. An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;

4. A nuclear-bomb-free Middle East. This includes removal and dismantling Israeli nuclear bombs.

[Wozzeck]

Time for Obama to shut Petraeus up or sack him.

[Hass]

"Either America stops Iran or Israel will." sounds like Netanyahoo's blackmail threat to me.

Fact is that the REAL threat Iran poses to Israel is that Iran and the US may start to get along, in which case Israel's value to the US is reduced to just a vestige of the Cold War. Iran is the 18th largest country in the world, strategically located and with massive natural resources and a huge potential market for US goods and services. Compare that to Israel which is constant drain on the US treasury.

But remember, before Nixon could approach China, he had to rid himself of the influence-peddling of the Taiwanese lobby. It remains to be seen whether Obama can rid himself of the influence-peddling of the Pro-Israeli Lobby. Signs are not good.

[Macready]

very thought provoking . . thank you for posting . . whatever Netanyahoo's rationale for saying he would bomb Iran . . . he must realise that after Operation Cast Lead . . israel has lost . .. if Hamas had not sent rockets into civilian areas but had targetted military buildings . . the tide would have completely turned against israel . . . 1400 deaths to 13, etc . . the call by Amnesty for an independent investigation has to happen .. . israel will have to go back to its pre-war 1967 boundaries and learn how to live in peace with its neighbours . . for far too long succeeded in getting US and EU support for its apartheid regime by blackmail . . our craven congress still supports the AIPAC why I reallly don't understand at all . . . this support has to end . . . the only way to bring israel in line is to impose sanctions and boycotts . . I don't think a two state solution is viable israel's war mongering has blown it -- they will have to become one country . . . israel has destroyed itself . . . but israel loves to blame others . . .it never accepts responsibility for its actions . . .. . it won't sign the Geneva Convention, it has passed laws exempting its soldiers from being tried as war criminals, yet it continues to build illegal settlements and continues to ghettoise

[Macready]

my blurb has missing words.

and continues to ghettoise the Palestinians . . . the Jerusalem wall still stands in defiance of international law . . . israel has the committed the highest number of UN human rights offfences and still they get money . . this has to stop . . the US and the EU have to stop aiding this apartheid country that repeatedly breaks the law and kills innocent people . . .

[RabidRightRebel]

Netanyahu is just trying to once again distract attention from Israel's ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians and the continued building of illegal settlements on occupied territory.

The solution is simple: Return the occupied territory in exchange for membership in NATO and the construction of a NATO base on the border between Gaza and Israel. The Palestinians get their land back and the Israelis get security guarantees from the NATO countries that ensures the Israel will never again have to face any threat on its own.

Sadly the far right in Israel are too greedy to accept this solution so instead they must divert attention by threatening war with Iran.

[joeinvt]

Your suggestion is right on. You may be right that it would be scuttled by the Israeli far right wing, but what makes you think that it would be acceptable either to Palestinians or others in the Muslim, world such as Iran, who continue to argue that Israel should be wiped off the map, etc.?

[stpmdn]

The best solution is a south africa style refrendum. But the world needs to start putting pressure on Israel the same way they did to South Africa. It'll never happen because of the power of Israel lobby in the US. We'll veto anything that would exert any type of pressure on the Israelis.

[Hass]

Iran has repeatedly said that any settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians would be acceptable to it.

[JonSmiley]

Brilliant and accurate analysis as always. This article is a must read.

[darthmaul]

"1 First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations." I'm sorry but I don't agree with this premise. The implicit threat of Iran striking Israel with nuclear weapons because of Israels actions against Lebanon or the Palastenians makes no sense to me.

The second premise that the US would have to treat Iran as a regional power does make sense. I wouldn't put anything past Netanyahu. If he could get the US involved with bombing Iran, he would do it in a heart beat. The ramifications if he does this, and fails are enormous. It would torpedo any ongoing negotiations and completely isolate Iran from all of the Muslim world, and probably the rest of the world.

[Macready]

like you darthnmaul . . I wouldn't put anything past netanyahoo . . that is why the financial plug has to be pulled .. . he is extreme right-wing, so is his buddy liebermann -- these guys will take the rest of the world down with them given half a chance