To nobody’s surprise but rather earlier than expected the danger of a war on Iran that every sensible person wants to avoid has escalated ominously during the last few days. The first to raise the ante was, of course, Israel when it issued the bluntest warning of air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to date. On Thursday, Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak, speaking at a security forum attended by top Israeli intelligence and military leaders, all but said that the time was approaching soon for military action against Iran’s nuclear sites.
Time, he declared, was “running out for stopping Iran’s nuclear advance, as the country’s uranium facilities disappear into the newly constructed mountain bunkers”. More significantly he added: “Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late.” His audience noted that while saying this he switched from Hebrew to English. Israeli officials also claimed that the UN nuclear inspectors’ talks in Teheran had drawn a blank.
Washington’s immediate reaction to this was mounting concern over the possibility that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear installations and do it soon without consulting or even informing the United States. So much so that the American defence secretary, Leon Panetta, found it necessary to speak of the “deepening differences” on the Iran strategy. These were clearly reflected during a recent visit to Jerusalem by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey. Other European leaders, too, have failed to persuade Israel to “show patience” and give the strictest sanctions, coupled with covert action and assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, time to “bite” Iran into accepting the demands of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Expressing concern over Israel “positioning itself for a surprise attack”, Mr Panetta told reporters in Brussels: “Israel has indicated they are considering this, and we have expressed our concern.”
Within 24 hours, all this became a sideshow because on Friday Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a fiery speech, spelled out what the consequences of a pre-emptive strike on his country would be. The Ayatollah rarely delivers a lecture after Friday prayers. He obviously made an exception because of Israel’s statement the previous day. His rhetoric against the “Zionist regime that is a true cancer tumour on this region that should be cut off and would definitely be cut off” was not new. But its timing and context lent it exceptional importance. Moreover, those concerned did not fail to notice he spoke shortly after Iran had launched its second small satellite into space.
For the US Ayatollah Khamenei’s declaration — “From now onwards, we will support and help any nation, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of saying this” — merely confirmed what its intelligence agencies have been saying.
Here is the key to one of America’s two great difficulties in restraining Israel. The clout of the pro-Israel lobby in the US is immense at all times but in an election year it is formidable because of the huge importance of Jewish vote and money. Any US President is greatly constrained for this reason. President Barack Obama’s disabilities are much the greater. This should explain why the Obama administration cannot assert in public what it tells Israel privately: that any military strike on Iran would be disastrous because it would “shatter” the international unity against Iran’s nuclear programme, enable the unpopular Iranian regime to regain the support of the Iranian people and, could have incalculable consequences in the Muslim world.
To add to the administration’s misery there is no dearth of politicians and experts in America that are insisting on an immediate attack on Iran, preferably by the US and Israel jointly or least by Israel. Mitt Romney, the front-runner in the contest of the Republican presidential nomination, says that Iran is the “greatest threat to the US and (Mr) Obama is doing nothing about it”.
Israel, of course, rejects these arguments summarily and retorts that the US is 10,000 miles away from Iran while an Iranian bomb is a threat to Israel’s “very existence”. Furthermore, add Israeli leaders and analysts, once Iran achieves its objective military action against it would be impossible, a sentiment voiced also by Mr Barak when he talked of “later being ‘too late’”.
Secondly, Mr Obama faces a double whammy in relation to Israel. The Jewish state has attacked its neighbours unilaterally and it seems determined to repeat this time around. And it knows that it can act on its own without having to bother about informing its staunch ally, the US. On the one hand, few in the world would believe that Israel had acted without America’s connivance; and, on the other, Israel would be immune from any American disapproval, leave alone condemnation.
No wonder the dominant scenario, according to West Asian experts in Washington, is that Israel would strike at Iran and do so within 2012. In a lengthy and superbly documented article “Israel Versus Iran: When Will it Erupt?” in the New York Times Magazine of January 29, Ronen Bergman stated categorically that Israel was convinced that it can cause severe damage to Iran’s nuclear sites and withstand the “inevitable counterattack”; that it would have tacit international support, particularly from America; and that all other possibilities to contain Iran’s nuclear threat have been exhausted.
He concludes the article with the words: “After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence (including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mr Barak), I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012… There is that fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.”
Even Mr Panetta is reported to have told a closed-door meeting that Israel could strike as early as April this year. But whenever the media questions him he refused to discuss the matter though never denies having made the statement.