Israel Matzav

The New York Times' alternate reality

The New York Times editorializes against Israel taking action to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. As if that were not sufficient cause to take umbrage in and of itself, the Times ignores the reality that the Iranian threat poses to Israel.

Israeli leaders are again talking about possible military action against Iran. This is, at best, mischievous and, at worst, irresponsible, especially when diplomacy has time to run.

On what basis is the Times saying that 'diplomacy has time to run'? From Israel's perspective, we likely have 2-3 months at most before Iran enters the 'zone of immunity' in which there is very little we can do to stop them. On what basis does the Times believe that we should trust Barack Hussein Obama - the most anti-Israel President since the state was established - to save us? Is the Times willing to tell the Obama administration to give us those giant bunker busters and refueling jets that would leave us a realistic military option after November? I doubt it, and I doubt Obama would comply (or could comply quickly enough) even if the Times instructed him to do that. In any event, from Israel's perspective, the statement 'diplomacy still has time to run' is a very limited one.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are clearly dangerous to the region. Iranian leaders operated a nuclear program in secret for two decades and continued to invest in it even after its discovery in 2002. The government is outspoken in its hatred of Israel.

'Outspoken in its hatred of Israel'?!? How's that for understatement. Let's tell the truth: Like in the picture at the top of this post, Iran has repeatedly and continually threatened to wipe Israel off the face of this earth. They refer to us as vermin, as a cancer that has to be cut out of the world, as the sons of apes and pigs.... That's a lot more than 'outspoken in its hatred of Israel.' And the world's continuing silence in the face of those repeated Iranian statements - as if silence will mute their effect - only makes matters worse.

But while Israel’s defense minster, Ehud Barak, suggested on Israel Radio Thursday that Iran had made significant progress toward acquiring weapons capability — citing what he said was a new American intelligence report — there is no proof that Iran is at the point of producing a weapon. Obama administration officials would not confirm the existence of such a report, and, in any case, continue to insist strongly that Iran is not on the verge of achieving a weapon.

Well what do you expect them to say? They don't want a war before November because they're afraid it will muck up Hussein Obama's reelection party. You'll note that they didn't deny the existence of the report or its contents. Why was that? Given how much this administration has refused to keep its word or past administrations' promises to Israel, why should any Israeli believe any 'strong insistence' by the Obama administration that Iran is or is not on the verge of achieving anything?

It is impossible to know what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning or why he has ignored American entreaties to give diplomacy a reasonable chance.

Mr. Netanyahu has been 'giving diplomacy a reasonable chance' for the last three and a half years since both he and Mr. Hussein Obama came into office. Mr. Netanyahu wasn't the one who fought a 100-0 Senate vote to implement stiffer sanctions against Iran, and then tried to take credit for having brought them about. Mr. Netanyahu wasn't the one who tried to take on a bipartisan House vote that would have implemented oil sanctions months earlier than they were actually implemented. Mr. Netanyahu wasn't the one who insisted on wasting three years with his hand extended to Iran until it was stiff and cold. And Mr. Netanyahu wasn't the one who decided to ignore the opposition to the Ahmadinejad regime and refuse to help them when they were being beaten in the streets and raped and tortured in Evin prison. So why does Mr. Netanyahu now stand accused by the Times of not 'giving diplomacy a reasonable chance'?

There is, however, persistent speculation in Israel that Mr. Netanyahu wants to attack in the coming weeks in the belief that President Obama will be forced to support the decision because of his political needs in his re-election campaign. Such a move would be outrageously cynical.

Cynical? Maybe. But given Obama's track record of lack of support for Israel and his personal distaste for Netanyahu, perhaps it is our only chance of attacking Iran without American interference (asking for any support from Obama is probably asking too much).

Military action is no quick fix. Even a sustained air campaign would likely set Iran’s nuclear program back only by a few years and would rally tremendous sympathy for Iran both at home and abroad.

A lot can change in 'only a few years.' Ask any doctor who specializes in cancer treatments. Keeping a patient alive for 'only a few years' can mean keeping him alive for the development of a cure - or in Iran's case, keeping it from nuclear weapons long enough for a real democracy to unseat the mullahs. As to sympathy for Iran's government, I don't see that happening. Bashar al-Assad has sure garnered a lot of sympathy over the last 18 months, hasn't he? I doubt that Ahmadinejad and Khameni would garner any more sympathy than that even if half of Iran were destroyed. Iranians read my blog and Iranians email me, and I know that they aren't going to suddenly support their government because someone bombed their nuclear facilities. Ask people who really know - like Reza Khalili - what the odds are that Iranians will support their government if their nuclear facilities are attacked.

The current international consensus for sanctions, and the punishments, would evaporate.

Which 'current international consensus for sanctions' would that be? The one that exempts China, Turkey, Germany and other huge Iranian trading partners? The one that has the Russians complaining that they won't tolerate the US excluding any of their companies from the US markets because they trade with Iran? The one that has so many loopholes that Iran is still trading hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil every day?

It would shift international outrage against Mr. Assad’s brutality in Syria to Israel.

It would shift the outrage of the Times and their fellow travelers on the Left to Israel, because they're always looking for excuses to attack Israel. But it would be applauded - secretly - in countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the UAE and Jordan - all of which are soiling their pants over the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Even so, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government has never liked the idea of negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, and, at times, seems in a rush to end them altogether.

No one has invited Israel to 'negotiate' with Iran over nuclear weapons, and I doubt such an invitation would be accepted if proffered. As to Mr. Netanyahu's 'hard-line government,' that would be the same government that has sat on its hands regarding Iran for three and a half years, the same government that has shown incredible restraint in the face of continuing rocket fire from Egypt and Gaza, and the same government that granted a 10-month freeze on building in Judea and Samaria for the Times' beloved 'Palestinians' only to receive scorn and contempt in return. Some hard-liners.

No one can be sure that any mix of diplomacy and sanctions will persuade Iran to give up its ambitions. But the talks have been under way only since April, and the toughest sanctions just took effect in July.

It is highly unlikely that any mix of diplomacy and sanctions will force persuade Iran to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons (something the Times can only refer to as Iran's 'ambitions'). The Times ignores the fact that Iran has used the years it took to get to talks and sanctions to make significant progress in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. What's relevant here is how far Iran is away from obtaining nuclear weapons, and how much time Israel (because no one else will try) has to stop them. The fact that 'negotiations' have only been going on for four months and real sanctions have only been in effect for one month (to the extent they're in effect at all) is irrelevant in light of how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon.

But since the Times isn't even capable of admitting that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, I suppose we can't really expect them to see why Israel might want to stop Iran in its tracks.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Iran sanctions regime, Iranian engagement, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:42 PM