The Bibi Two-Step
The Iranian nuclear issue is moot. It became moot when George W. Bush left the White House.
Nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power -– especially not President Obama. It’s doubtful that Israel would risk a pre-emptive attack and its aftermath.
Israeli politicians, military egos, and media pundits, however, have created a hysterical state of mind which is now being used to garner support for destroying more Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. This provides Prime Minister Netanyahu with a perfect excuse; dealing with Iran is more important than West Bank outposts.
Sound logical? Most PR does. But it presents a totally false symmetry. What does Iran have to do with settlements?
The idea that evacuating Jews will bring Arabs into a coalition against Iran and promote regional strategic cooperation is delusional. With Iran in full support of Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda in Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and other Muslim countries, who cares about a few Jews living on hilltops?
Obama has painted himself into a corner. Unwilling to take on Iran militarily, he has turned against the closest and most vulnerable target, Israel. And Netanyahu -– as in previous confrontations over policy differences –- may be wobbling, yet again.
Remember his excuses for signing the Wye Agreement in 1998, which turned over major cities and vast tracts of land to the PA? “Now they will be accountable,” he burbled.
He went along with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement” from Gaza because, he said, his role as finance minister was too important to leave. He failed to lead Israelis fed up with corruption and ineptitude after Israel’s botched action against Hezbollah in Lebanon. It could be another set-up, or a new dance step.
Iran needs the American bogeyman to unite; America needs the threat from Iran to whip Israel into major security surrender; and Netanyahu needs both to build a strong coalition and stay in power. He’s been through all of this before; he won’t make the same mistakes.
Whether or not Iran has the capability of launching a nuclear-tipped missile from its territory is unclear. Thanks to Pakistan and North Korea, Iran may have acquired the technology for a smaller nuclear devise mounted on ballistic missiles that could be launched by small groups anywhere, most likely via Hezbollah and Hamas proxies.
The obvious advantage of Iran’s use of a proxy is that it’s harder to trace its origins, thereby offering Iran protection from retaliation, at least for a while, if at all.
This situation severely limits Israel’s options, primarily its reliance on anti-missile defense. Chances are good that an incoming missile will be intercepted, which would then entitle a response with full force.
Ironically, once it achieves nuclear capability, Iran is more identifiably dangerous, and therefore more limited. The more threatening Iran becomes, the higher the stakes, the more intense a confrontation and the likelihood of a serious response. This offers the only real chance to prevent Iran from attacking.
The United States, Britain and France (at least) must warn Iran that launching a missile — any missile (since it can be assumed to be a WMD) –- would result in the total annihilation of Iran by a combined international force. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s refusal to make this clear weakens any opposition and offers no incentives for Iran to change course.
The warning to Iran must be clear, unequivocal, and substantive, obligating the “great powers,” including NATO, to become part of a control mechanism, and one that will act decisively. There can be no question about the ramifications of a first-strike launch using WMD.
The advantage of such a system is that it virtually locks in all participants and everyone knows the rules. Iran’s success up to now has been due to the lack of rules, clear red lines, and meaningful consequences. The responsibility for prudence and self-preservation as well as the system itself, therefore, is incumbent on every player. And once armed, there is no withdrawal.
Without doubt, Iran, like Pakistan and North Korea, will try to distribute and build facilities for WMD, and they may be initially successful, as occurred recently when a nuclear facility was being built in Syria. It would appear, however, that these initiatives could be readily eliminated.
Countries which have WMD and threaten others should be ostracized. This could easily become part of the UN Charter and other international bodies. In this way, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons could be a blessing in disguise, if it prompts a new way of thinking about the problem and how to contain it. As more nations acquire nuclear weapons they can learn that it’s also a responsibility.
This, however, has nothing to do with Jews, settlements, elephants, or camels.
And if you think Obama knows the dance floor, Bibi can show him a trick or two.
“As more nations acquire nuclear weapons they can learn that it’s also a responsibility.”
This would appear to be a dangerous gamble. As long as Iran is ruled by apocalyptic religious fanatics, how can we trust them to learn “responsibility”? Iran will remain a wild card in this game as long as its leaders believe their only responsibility is to their warped idea of God.
Mr. Dann:
I have no idea why you published this article. To say
“The United States, Britain and France (at least) must warn Iran that launching a missile — any missile (since it can be assumed to be a WMD) –- would result in the total annihilation of Iran by a combined international force.”
is to totally ignore the fate of George W. Bush and the past decade. Despite listing over twenty reasons for intervention, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was first and last in support of non-proliferation. You witnessed how committed to that idea the other players were. There is no stomach for anything past empty rhetoric. Wishful thinking and an averted gaze are the most you can expect.
While the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is frightening, consider the situation when countries like Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc finally accept that non-proliferation is a sham and only places them in the cross-hairs. They will nuke up. And then, as one commenter put it a few months ago, it will be 1914 again, only this time with nuclear weapons.
Lots of hypothetical concepts, here, and lots of “shoulds” to go with them. I agree, however, that Netanyahu is more experienced than Obama, who pushes himself in absurd corners by nurturing image-driven positions.
I would applaud a show of unity by the west if it ever happened, but let’s remember that this would be rather miraculous right now, for lack of american leadership.
Intercepting an incoming missile aimed to Israel from a launching pad in Iran has a reasonable chance of success because there is enough time to recognize the trajectory with precision, and intercept it successfully, but projectiles from the immediate neighborhood are more problematic from this angle, and better addressed preemptively.
In this vein, the destruction of the nuclear plant in Syria was exemplary, both in execution, and in journalistic stealth, refraining from any victorious claim to leverage on Syria’s desire not to acknowledge a humiliating loss.
Obama’s stance on dialog with the mullahs was stupid on the substance, but brilliant in term of harnessing war fatigue in his electorate. The iranians protestors have brought the foolishness of the policy to light, and in that sense, are educating the american electorate, and in due time change its leadership.
In the meantime Netanyahu has a high wire act to sustain, for which his experience is precious, and the iranian protestors will learn low profile tactics for all they are worth.
A few points – despite the grave dangers of attacking Iran I do believe Netanyahu will order a hit. This is only because the dangers posed by NOT attacking are truly existential. He would rather risk thousands of Jewish deaths from an Iranian reprisal than millions dead from mushroom clouds.
I firmly believe that the gov’t is convinced-as they should be-that the Iranian Hitler is not driven by MAD, but by messianic visions, therefore, there is EVERY reason to believe him when he states that he will wipe Israel off the map.
In regard to the so called ‘settlements’-I also believe that he will do exactly as Sharon did-he will negate ALL his promises to his voters, his MK’s etc. He is not an honest man, therefore, there is EVERY reason to believe he will deceive his voters.
I also believe that this will be done shortly after the dust settles from an Israeli strike on Iran. It will be the coinage paid to Washington (and to the international community) to stop their public hysteria over the attack.
In no small measure the sight of hundreds of thousands of Jews dragged from their homes and their communities destroyed will go over big time with the western leaders.
By the way, Netanyahu’s calculus might very well include, that since the people will be so traumatized over the Iranian blow back they will have little stomach to resist another expulsion and another betrayal.
I would also not be surprised if Washington knows which way the wind is blowing.
We shall soon see….
Moshe, you are way off base about the ‘benefits’ in Iran going nuclear, and the fact that the toothless international bodies would make an iota of a difference.
I am afraid that your circular logic is like whistling past the graveyard. Western powers by their very nature are persuaded by MAD, rogue dictators and Islamists are decidedly NOT.
Do any of the western nuclear powers have leaders who have the sand to do as the author proposes? Do the leaders of Iran care if they turn their country into a glass desert? I believe the answers are no and yes. Obama has no stones, Gordon won’t act unilaterally, and Sarkozy is the only one I trust to do as he says on this issues. Mr. Tiny(Iranian president)isn’t truly in charge, as we all know, and the guardian council indeed cares about their survival. Does this answer mean we should allow them to get the bomb, because we can contain them with the threat of MAD? Of course not. Some people can be trusted with nukes because they’re intent of having them is not to cause mayhem but to guarantee peace. Iran doesn’t fit this definition.
The writer makes an assumption that is a strategic mistake. His assumption is that a nuclear device would be delivered by a missile. It would make the identification of the guilty party easy and foolproof for any retaliation which it would provoke.
Unknown third party attacks could trigger a response and lead to a doomsday ( MAD )scenario without the real culprit ever being identified . There are plenty of treacherous regimes and characters in todays world who are capable of such crimes.
Bibi will cave in. Bibi is hot air! There is less sympathy in Washington for the shticks of the settlements movement and there is no opposition to the “Incomprable One Obama”. Few who served during the June 1967 war, were told that “Sadin Adom”/Red Sheet the code word for the move into the Sinai, was to obtain real estate for Olim from Baltimore and Phili. The idea that these newly arrived will get preferential marble floor triplex, overlooking the Judean Hills is a bit rich and distasteful. Jews have a claim but recent historical facts also factor into any future agreements. We do not live in an ideal world, and an opportunist like Bibi will only do what it takes to keep him in office longger than his previous scandalous short term. Obama’s Jewish enablers, Axelrod, Emmanuel, the numerous stenographers, opinionators, political grifters will do exactly what American Jews did during World War 2-ignore the problem when it will be known to them. The U.S abandoned Israel before the outbreak of the June 1967 war, a firm promise was made by a U.S President, following the departure from the Sinai in 1957, that the Gulf of Aqaba will remain open. President Johnson pretended that the Dutch corsairs can deal with it. They did not. Israel was forced to fight for its survival. During 1991 Bush Pere forced Israel to take direct hits from Hussein’s scuds. U.S Patriots posted in tel Aviv were utterly useless, as they are today, a phony toy and a great job provider, but no rockets shooter. Can Israel count on an Alinsky camp follower with its survival?
Israel is so small that it cannot afford to ‘retaliate’ one hit and its gone. Which is why the must use a first strike policy simply as a matter of survival. So given the threats that Iran has made to wipe Israel off the map then Israel has no option but to stop Iran going nuclear.
Bibi sounds like big brother
To Pajamas Media
Comments on Moshe Dann’s article seem to miss the point: Iran’s nuclear threat is a clear and present danger, but who is willing to do something about it, especially when Russian, France, Germany and others are supplying the means to become a nuclear power? Can and should Israel take on the burden of acting alone?
And why has Pres Obama linked action on Iran with settlements in Israel? Dann correctly suggests that perhaps the Iran issue is being used to accomplish other purposes, for example, as an excuse for destroying Jewish communities and pushing the “two-state solution” down Israel’s throat.
Further, Dann presents an interesting and unique paradoxical perspective: what if Iran, in achieving nuclear capability, is in fact more restricted? This deserves serious comment.
Dann proposes what may seem improbable rules and consequences concerning countries that threaten other countries — a purpose for which the UN was established. Lacking this now, what prevents the international community from taking at least this step forward? Why hasn’t Pres Obama provided the initiative for this, at least in the UNSC?
Concerns about PM Netanyahu’s resolve are certainly valid and Dann wisely suggests that past mistakes are no indications of future deeds. This is Bibi’s real test of leadership.
Dann’s warning that a “dirty bomb” and the use of terrorist proxies may be more worrying than Iranian missiles seem quite appropriate — and certainly not limited to Iran. Such articles of substance deserve more than superficial responses.
Monique Nicholson