Israel Matzav

A 'strategic decision' not to let Iran go nuclear

The Hebrew daily Maariv is reporting today that Israel's cabinet has reached a 'strategic decision' not to let Iran go nuclear.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United States and Western countries will succeed in toppling the ayatollah regime diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether an American strike on Iran will eventually be decided upon, Jerusalem has put preparations for a separate, independent military strike by Israel in high gear.

So far, Israel has not received American authorization to use US-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense establishment been successful in securing the purchase of advanced US-made warplanes which could facilitate an Israeli strike.

The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a global early warning radar system, implying that the US is pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only.

Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has consistently warned over the past years it will not settle for a 'wait and see' approach and retaliate in case of attack, but rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in the first place.

I wonder how serious this 'strategic decision' is, although I am sure it is one nearly all Israelis would support. First, I question whether this cabinet and this government are capable of making any kind of 'strategic decisions,' let alone sticking to them. Second, any plan that the defense establishment develops would have to assume that we will get no American support. The Bush administration has all but told the government that they expect it to absorb a first-strike before going after Iran. That would be a catastrophe that Israel cannot afford. The fact that the IDF carried out an exercise in June in which it practiced flying the full distance to Iran and back indicates to me that the IDF is planning for an eventuality in which it has to confront Iran without American support. But I question whether this government has what it takes to pull the trigger, particularly as we may be embroiled in an election campaign during what I still regard as the window of opportunity - November 5, 2008 - January 19, 2009.

In the meantime, Israel is still going through the motions of pretending that sanctions can resolve the problem. And perhaps they could have an effect - if certain countries were to agree to effectively implement them.

Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK which has left the party recently, has sent a document to both US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point document states that "there is no government in Jerusalem that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously considered."

According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the "sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate bloodshed." To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh wrote, "real" sanctions applied in concert by the US and Europe is necessary. A total embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total boycott of Iranian banks will topple, within a short time, the regime which is already pressured by a sloping economy and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they would have outside assistance.

The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a half to two years, until 2010.

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby those two states. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.

"Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security doesn't impress these guys," Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly "it's a shame, because Ido will light all this up." He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed commander of the Israeli Air Force and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become the necessity.

"Investing in Iran in 2008," Sneh told his Austrian hosts, "is like investing in Krups Steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment." The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.

Talk of a Jewish holocaust doesn't impress the British either. A survey recently found that only 39% of British respondents had 'negative feelings' about Iran. That compares with 64% of Germans who have negative feelings about Iran and 87% of Americans who regard Iran as a 'threat.'

"Americans, the British and the Germans worry about the direct threat to Israel from Iran and fear Iran's potential to share nuclear technology with terrorist groups," said Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. "All countries want diplomacy over military action to address this threat. The Germans oppose military action for historical and cultural reasons and the British do not want another Iraq. Yet the Americans are more open to military action, especially if a diplomatic solution fails to become a reality."

In fact, 62% of Americans still think sanctions could help. But 63% of Americans are willing to see Israel take action against Iran if 'diplomacy fails,' and 55% would be willing to see the US itself strike selected targets in Iran.

The Americans, at least, seem to understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran.

About 87% of those polled said a nuclear Iran will pose a threat to the US and 96% believe it would be of imminent threat to Israel.

Furthermore, 90% said that should Iran possess nuclear weapons it may sell them, or their technology to terror organizations. An additional 80% said they did not believe Iran was pursuing nuclear technology for sheer ability and that Tehran is likely to make use of it.

When asked what should or could be done to stop the Iranian nuclear program in its tracks, a majority of those polled said the supported a military strike against the Islamic Republic, should all diplomatic efforts fail.

Some 81% said they believed the international community must find a way to stop Iran's pursuit after nuclear technology; but 62% said they believed the world can still find a diplomatic solution which would make Iran halt its nuclear endeavors.

And the best news of all from this survey?

As for the US' role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, 69% of the survey's participants said they believed the US administrations must side with Israel.

And the foreign ministry is worried about branding?

Bottom line: If Israel chooses to take action, the US will back us (and protect us from the UN's wrath) at least so long as the current administration is in power provided that 'sanctions' have run their course. The timing may be tricky, but I would err on the side of hitting Iran 'too soon' rather than too late. What will happen if - God forbid - there is an Obama administration come January is anyone's guess.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:04 PM