Bombing Iran?

By S. P. SETH

Will he or will he not bomb Iran? The reference here is to Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is on warpath. He wants to bomb Iran if the US wouldn’t to do it to prevent it from developing an atomic bomb. How serious he is about going it alone is not clear but obviously it has been taken seriously enough by the US and Britain to dissuade him from doing it. But this has only angered Netanyahu. He wants the US to lay down “red lines” for Iran on its nuclear program beyond which it would be open war on that country. However, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has reportedly said that Washington was “not setting deadlines for Iran”, obviously indicating that it would keep up the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran to produce results.

Netanyahu hasn’t taken kindly to it announcing angrily and petulantly that: “The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there’s still time [before Iran develops a nuclear weapon].’  And I say: ‘Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” Netanyahu is one angry man apparently unconcerned about blowing up the Middle East where things are already inflamed enough after the Arab Spring and, now, the smouldering unrest caused by the YouTube documentary, made by some crazy guy in the US, insulting Prophet Muhammad.

The backdrop for Netanyahu’s ratcheting up the Iran issue at this particular time is the ongoing electoral contest between Obama and Romney and the leverage he might have from a strong pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. Romney is his favored candidate because he is prepared to make all sorts of promises on Iran to galvanize the Jewish interests in the United States behind his election campaign. Israel was one of the few countries that Romney recently visited where he was received with great warmth by Netanyahu to highlight his preference.

Indeed, Romney has reportedly accused Obama of  “throwing Israel under the bus”, in an apparent reference to the Iranian nuclear issue. Obama has refused Netanyahu’s request for a meeting between the two during the UN General Assembly meeting, further angering the Israeli Prime Minister. Obama is also not prepared to commit any specific deadline for US military action against Iran beyond a broad commitment, already in place, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu’s interference in US’s internal politics by playing presidential favourites (Romney) seems to be hardening feelings in the United States. According one recent poll, 70 percent of American respondents were opposed to unilateral US military action against Iran. Indeed, 59 per cent reportedly said Israel should be left to fend for itself if it were to bomb Iran, and then called for US help.

The intensity and comprehensive nature of the US and western sanctions against Iran to force it into stopping enrichment of uranium is indicative of US commitment against Iran going nuclear. And it is hurting Iran. The idea is that if the pressure is maintained and kept up it will start hurting people to a point where they might want to get rid of the present regime and replace it with a new government willing to give up the nuclear path. But it doesn’t seem to be working and Israel wants a cut off point beyond which the US will bomb Iran or allow Israel to do so with its backing. Which is where the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration diverge, with Washington refusing to be dictated by Tel Aviv in this matter.

Indeed, there are now voices in the United States---though not yet powerful enough to change the US’ Iran policy---, that are starting to think the unthinkable about Iran’s nuclear issue as in a recent article in the New York Times. According to Bill Keller, a former executive editor of the New York Times, “…There are serious, thoughtful people [in the US] who are willing to contemplate a nuclear Iran, kept in check by the time-tested assurance of retaliatory destruction”, meaning a strategic balance based on the old doctrine of mutually assured destruction. The other option of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, he writes, “would almost certainly require major US participation to be effective, and would not be neat.” And he lists all the possible disasters that might accompany such an action.

Keller dismisses the scary scenario of Iran using its bomb (if it gets one) to exterminate Israel. He argues that, “The regime in Iran is brutal, mendacious and meddlesome…. but there is not the slightest reason to believe the mullahs themselves are suicidal” to invite nuclear retaliation from a powerful Israel backed by the United States. Therefore,”… if forced to choose, I would swallow the risks of a nuclear Iran over the gamble of a pre-emptive strike.” Such a thesis on Iran’s nuclear program is quite remarkable. It is even more remarkable that it has appeared in the New York Times, inclined sympathetically to Israel.

In a similarly unconventional way, Kenneth Waltz argues in the American journal, Foreign Affairs, that, “It is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis.” And he says of Iran’s potential nuclear status: “… Every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it.”

What is worrying is Netanyahu’s advocacy of bombing Iran, even if it meant Israel going it alone.  This is not only causing disquiet in the United States and other western countries, but also in parts of the Israel’s political, security and intelligence establishment. In a long article in the New Yorker, David Remnick, its editor, explores the issue based on his conversations with relevant people. He writes, “… a growing number of leading intelligence and military officials, active and retired, have made plain their opposition to a unilateral Israeli strike.” He adds, “ They include the Army Chief of Staff, the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, the heads of the two main intelligence agencies, the Mossad (Israel’s C.I.A.) and Shin Bet (its F.B.I.), President Shimon Peres, and members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, including the Intelligence Minister.”

Meir Dagan, director of the Mossad from 2002 to January 2011 expressed his strong concern in an interview with Remnick. He said, “ An Israeli bombing would lead to a regional war and solve the internal problems of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It would galvanize Iranian society behind the leadership and create unity around the nuclear issue.” Furthermore: “…it would justify Iran in rebuilding its nuclear project… A bombing would be considered an act of war, and there would be an unpredictable counterattack against us…”

Considering that the United States and its allies have amassed a large naval fleet in the region to warn off Iran against blocking Strait of Hormuz or any other action they might consider provocative, the situation in the region is highly explosive, even though the culprit is Israel with its Prime Minister Netanyahu threatening to bomb Iran. But the US feels helpless when it comes to Israel’s belligerence. The point is: will Netanyahu bomb Iran before the US presidential election or after it? The world will be waiting with bated breath.   

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.