Iran’s Nuclear Threat, Obama and Israel (continued) by Gidon D. Remba

Iran’s Nuclear Threat, Obama and Israel (continued) by Gidon D. Remba

Israeli Strike or Bust?

Neoconservatives have lost no time beating the drums of war and insisting that the time for an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program is now. “With no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable,” urged John Bolton. Ridiculing the administration’s willingness to attempt direct talks with Iran as a “theological commitment to negotiations”―a projection of Bolton’s own ideological opposition to them under any circumstances―Bolton asserts that there is no point to waiting for talks to play out with Iran.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a ‘Plan B’,” he continues, “which would allow Iran to have a ‘peaceful’ civil nuclear power program while publicly ‘renouncing’ the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as ‘success,’ even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now.” But the point of negotiations is to establish an intrusive inspections system not unlike the one that succeeded in preventing Saddam from re-developing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a fact that Bolton finds too inconvenient to acknowledge.

In April 2008, Benjamin Netanyahu, then leader of the opposition, said to Stephen Hadley, then President George W. Bush’s national security adviser: “Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler and the mistakes that were made prior to the Second World War must not be repeated.” Soon after he became prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu repeatedly issued warnings about the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons: “These are not regular times,” he said. “The danger is hurtling toward us. The real danger [is] underestimating the threat. . . My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel…the leadership’s job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one.”

Such statements from Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have stoked apocalyptic fears among the Israeli Jewish public, and much of the mainstream American Jewish leadership. A former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has written that “If President Obama’s diplomatic efforts and subsequent tougher sanctions fail, then the president and the world should understand and support Israel’s engagement in military action, if it so undertakes, to halt or delay Iran’s capability of dropping a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv. One Holocaust is enough for the Jewish people.”

The “mad mullahs” picture of a regime driven by a martyr complex―a nation of irrational, undeterrable suicide bombers―has become firmly rooted in the Israeli Jewish psyche. But a series of reports has cast doubt on this view of Israel’s situation―and on the entire incendiary complex of fears propelling us towards an Israeli attack on Iran. The Yediot Ahronot [newspaper] security correspondent Ronen Bergman reported that “Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, the former chief of military intelligence, described Israel’s public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat as ‘distorted.’ His view―which is shared by many in Israel’s security and intelligence services―is that Israel is not Iran’s primary target,” nor its main motive for seeking a nuclear weapons capacity, and therefore, “Israel must not attack Iran unilaterally.”

Israel’s intelligence services recognize, continues Bergman, that “throughout its 30 years of existence, the Iranian regime has shown pragmatism and moderation whenever its survival was at stake. And the Iranians clearly understand that a nuclear attack against Israel would lead to a devastating Israeli counterstrike that, among other things, would mean the end of the revolutionary regime. Finally, the Mossad and military intelligence believe that the real reason the Iranians are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons … is to deter US intervention and efforts at regime change.”

It is widely understood among those who have closely studied the Iranian regime that it operates according to the principle of maslehat, “expediency,” taking a cost-benefit approach to decision-making. “Far from being a suicidally ideological regime,” observes Iran expert Mohsen M. Milani, “Tehran seeks to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic while advancing the country’s interests through negotiations.” Internal repression and détente with the US both serve these ends, as they did for post-Tiananmen China and Soviet Russia.

According to Dr. Reuven Pedatzur, a military affairs scholar at Tel Aviv University, an exhaustive study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington concluded that “it is questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years.” The odds of success from a military point of view are not great, the study’s authors conclude. Second, Israel would only attack Iran’s known nuclear sites. But it is likely that following such a strike―which would be unlikely to succeed even against the known sites―Iran would accelerate its uranium enrichment efforts in its secret sites, thus negating any possible benefits of a successful attack.

Third, Iran would certainly retaliate against Israeli targets with Shahab-3 missiles, as would Hezbollah and Hamas with many thousands of their own rockets, while also dispatching waves of suicide bombers into Israel. “Hezbollah now has some 40,000 rockets; Israel does not have a response to these rockets. The rocket defense systems now being developed (Iron Dome and Magic Wand) are still far from completion, and even after they become operational, it is doubtful they will prove effective against thousands of rockets launched at Israel.” The Israeli strike would also sow instability throughout the Middle East and potentially spur attacks against US forces and American allies in the region, while squelching Iran’s reformist movement.

The Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders have long opposed an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, emphasized that military action “could have grave consequences and would be very destabilizing.” Mullen also suggested that President Barack Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran holds promise. But the window for diplomacy to avert a dangerous Middle East nuclear arms race is closing, he warned.

Will Israel continue to huff and puff and threaten that it might hit Iran? Will it strike? Israel is unlikely to attack while the US is attempting to engage Iran; such action would jeopardize Israel’s good relations with the United States. But what if diplomacy, and sanctions, fail?

Political scientist Steven Cook has suggested that “all those indications portending an Israeli attack – the strike against Syria in September 2007, the large air exercises over the Mediterranean in the summer of 2008, and the recent countrywide drills that the IDF’s Home Command conducted [and Israel’s more recent naval maneuvers, coupled with the upcoming Arrow missile interceptor tests at a US missile range in the Pacific]―might actually indicate that Israel is trying to figure out how to deter Iran, rather than attack it.”

But security analyst Bergman has reached less sanguine conclusions from his conversations with Israeli government officials: “As Iran approaches nuclear weapons capability―some time in 2010, according to current Mossad estimates―an increasing number of people in Netanyahu’s circle will adopt the view that Israel needs to take action and that the United States will be understanding of Israel’s needs. And if the Obama administration is not so understanding? Israel may decide that the existential danger posed by a potential second Holocaust warrants risking even a serious rift with the United States. Ultimately, the fear of a nuclear-armed state whose leader talks openly of destroying Israel may outweigh the views of the country’s intelligence experts.”

Gidon D. Remba is executive director of the Jewish Alliance for Change (, a nonprofit organization which supported Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy and advocates for a progressive domestic and foreign policy agenda. He also edits the group’s “Say No To War With Iran” site and blogs at Tough Dove Israel. He served as senior foreign press editor and translator in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, 1977-1978, during the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David peace process.

By | 2009-07-23T13:10:00-04:00 July 23rd, 2009|Blog|1 Comment

One Comment

  1. Yehuda Erdman July 24, 2009 at 7:39 pm - Reply

    Under the previous israeli Government of Olmert, unfortunately on two separate occasions, the military in conjunction with Barack and Olmert (in the Gaza war also Livni) seemed to persuade each other that there was a military option firstly in Lebanon and secondly in Gaza. In both campaigns it has transpired that the outcome was very disappointing from the point of view of “crushing” Hitzbolla or “smashing” Hamas. Very fortunately for Israel, the Government pulled out the army out of Gaza without engaging Hamas in hand to hand fighting inside the tunnel network under Gaza City. However there has been incalculable harm done to Israel’s image in the world, so that Israel almost reached the nadir experienced by e.g. South Africa under the Apartheid regime. We in the Diaspora can not be asked to defend the indefensible actions of israel in an historical “knee jerk” response. Those days are over and Israel has to grow up and behave like a western democracy should. Might is not right. Obama was spot on when he said the Palestinians have suffered too much so that Israel should prosper.
    There have been hopeful signs that since Obama came to the White House he has leant on Natanyahu so much that there are metaphorical tears pouring down his cheeks (due to a tight pincer action on his assets). The result is that Bibi has moved further and faster than anyone believed possible with much potential to go even further.
    Personally I am very optimistic that we stand on the threshold of a comprehensive Middle East Peace agreement, with almost a grand slam element. I can see the accord between Israel and Palestine sgned up to by the two year deadline laid down by Obama. This could follow the outline of the Arab Legue proposal that Bibi has now said could form the basis of a negotiated settlement.
    A separate track mediated by Turkey and already advanced by Olmert and Assad should follow automatically and even simultaneously.
    This leaves the fly in the ointment which is the Iranian Nuclear Bomb. I agree totally with Gidon Remba that Ahmedinajad’s threat to destroy Israel is rhetoric (albeit very dangerous), and that the real motive of the Islamic Republic is survival. They face continuing internal pressure to reform themselves as for sure the majority of the Iranian people do not wish to be utterly wiped out in a nuclear war with Israel. Moreover they do not even like this regime which was foisted on their parents generation in 1979.
    It would be sheer madness for Israel to contemplate any sort of military adventure against Iran which is also a regional super-power and possibly capable of inflicting a heavy defeat on Israel in a conventional war.

Leave A Comment