Israel Matzav

Obama campaign disses Netanyahu

I told you immediately after the holiday that I now believe that Israel will not attack Iran before the US elections. (In fact, tonight and tomorrow night would have been the perfect nights for that attack). In a New York Times piece that could only have been solicited by the Obama campaign, two American-based experts explain how the Obama administration 'outflanked' Netanyahu to force him not to attack Iran before the election.

In fact, Mr. Netanyahu’s about-face resulted from a long-building revolt by Israel’s professional security establishment against the very idea of an early military attack, particularly one without the approval of the United States.

For months, former and even serving chiefs of Israel’s defense and intelligence communities have vigorously and publicly opposed Mr. Netanyahu’s case for attacking Iran sooner, rather than after all other means have been exhausted. Meir Dagan, the much respected former head of Mossad, did so to an American audience in an interview with Lesley Stahl broadcast last March by CBS’ “60 Minutes.” In Israel earlier, he had been quoted as saying that such an attack was “the stupidest idea I have ever heard.”

In addition, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak had proved unable to win sufficient support for early military action from other members of the government. Despite months of sustained effort, Mr. Netanyahu was not able to muster a majority even in his nine-member informal inner cabinet, much less Israel’s larger security cabinet, whose agreement he would need before attacking.

And in August, Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, took the occasion of his 89th birthday celebration to decisively reject any unilateral Israeli attack. The country’s pre-eminent elder statesman and the father of Israel’s own nuclear project, he broke with the nonpolitical traditions of Israel’s largely ceremonial presidency to argue that the central issue was the harm that going it alone could do to future American-Israeli relations.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Obama administration was conducting a quiet campaign that would strengthen the view, already circulating among Israeli security professionals, that prematurely attacking Iran would not advance Israel’s interests and would damage Israel’s relationship with America. Instead of holding Israel at bay or threatening punitive action, the administration was upgrading American security assistance to Israel — so much so that earlier this year Mr. Barak described the level of support as greater than ever in Israel’s history.

This increase was manifest at every level: intelligence sharing that resulted in a convergence of assessments about Iran’s nuclear efforts; joint cyberoperations to slow Iran’s nuclear program; support of Israel’s development of antimissile defenses; and reaching a common declared strategic approach to Iran’s nuclear program. That approach now focuses the two countries’ efforts on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, while also ruling out the option of a retreat to containing and deterring a nuclear-armed Iran.

Equally important, increased American assistance has been accompanied by closer institutional links between the two countries’ defense and intelligence communities, as well as more intimate personal ties between both communities’ top echelons. Through numerous meetings in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Washington, the Obama administration has used these connections to convey an unambiguous message: Do not attack before all nonmilitary efforts to roll back Iran’s nuclear program have been exhausted.

Ever deeper American-Israeli defense ties have created what might be labeled a “United States lobby” among Israeli security professionals, who now have a strong interest in continuing the close partnership. It is no accident that the security institutions have become among the most vocal opponents of attacking Iran. No one knows better than they what is at stake if they ignore Washington’s concerns.

And their views have resonated with the Israeli general public: a poll conducted jointly last month by the Truman Institute at Hebrew University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 77 percent of Israelis now oppose a military attack on Iran that is not approved by Washington, although 71 percent would support an attack with American consent.

The plain fact is that the Obama administration achieved its objective of persuading Israel to refrain from a premature attack largely without explicit or implied threats. Instead, it has built a closer relationship with Israel’s defense community, and has capitalized on it.

The identity of the pollsters (how is the 'Palestinian' Center for Policy and Survey Research polling Israelis?) ought to be enough to arouse suspicion about the numbers....

In any event, not attacking Iran was a mistake. If Romney is elected President of the United States, it's unlikely to be a fatal one. And there's little doubt that this is the real reason Netanyahu is going to elections: He wants a long-term stable coalition with which to confront Obama if Obama - God forbid - wins.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Campaign 2012, Iranian nuclear threat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:35 AM