The Region: The most-asked questions - will Obama attack Israel, will Israel attack Iran?
◙ Wally☻☺☻
The Region: The most-asked questions - will Obama attack Israel, will
Israel attack Iran?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339382306&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
By BARRY RUBIN
Of all the questions readers ask, there's no question about which are
the most frequent. First, is Israel about to attack Iran, or when will
this happen? Second, do US President Barack Obama and his entourage
hate Israel, and will there be a major confrontation or some kind of
sellout?
An IAF fighter jet.
Photo: IDF [file]
The first two questions are pretty easy to answer, the third less so.
Israel and an attack on Iran: Israeli policy is quite clear. Its
current emphasis is on supporting strong sanctions. There is, of
course, skepticism as to whether strong sanctions will be applied and
whether such a step would work, but that's not the determining factor.
It is recognized that the West must thoroughly try diplomatic means to
satisfy itself that everything short of an armed attack has failed.
Only when the sanctions have been seen to be ineffective at stopping
Iran's march to nuclear weapons would Israel even begin to go into an
attack phase, but even then there are two major considerations.
One is that it will only attack when Iran is on the verge of getting
weapons. Not only would that situation make the decision about
responding an immediate task, but also because that would be when
Teheran has the maximum equipment installed and the most damage can be
done. There is no sense bombing half-empty buildings.
The disadvantage is that this would give the regime more time to
disperse the facilities. And that introduces the other problem. A
cabinet meeting would be held to determine whether an attack could be
carried out, whether the political and security costs would be
acceptable and whether an attack would succeed in setting back the
Iranian program by a big margin.
IS ISRAEL capable of launching an effective attack? Without going into
all the complex details, the basic answer is "yes."
If destroying Iran's nuclear capability is an existential imperative,
could Israel weather the diplomatic criticism and terrorist or other
attacks? Again, yes. Hamas and Hizbullah would escalate and launch
rockets, but they could be deterred or defeated.
It is the last point, however, that is critical: Would an attack
achieve considerable success in putting back Iran's nuclear program by
years? That cannot be taken for granted. In military action lots can
go wrong. Planes can crash; mechanical breakdowns or bad weather may
cause failure. The distances involved are huge, the margin of error
very fine.
What if the bombs miss and hit civilians? (Yes, Israel cares a lot
about this despite all the slander and lies regarding its behavior.)
Will dispersion of facilities mean that only a small portion of Iran's
facilities will be damaged or destroyed?
In short, is it worth launching an attack that only inflames the
situation further, costs lots of diplomatic capital and doesn't do any
good?
This is a question that can only be raised and decided in a cabinet
meeting at the proper time. There is no determined choice already made
and that is as it should be.
THE SECOND question relates to Obama and Israel. In my opinion, Obama
has absolutely no warm feelings toward Israel and, if anything, his
instincts are hostile. But previous American presidents - notably
Richard Nixon - have followed pro-Israel policies despite being
personally unfriendly. What is important is that Obama and his
entourage have learned two things.
One of them is that bashing Israel is politically costly. American
public opinion is very strongly pro-Israel. Congress is as friendly to
Israel as ever. For an administration that is more conscious of its
future reelection campaign than any previous one, holding onto Jewish
voters and ensuring Jewish donations is very important. There will
almost certainly not be a visit of Obama to Israel this year; he'll
wait until it will do him some good at the polls (which is a good
thing, since the less attention he pays to this issue the less harm
he'll do).
The other point is that the administration has seen that bashing
Israel doesn't get it anywhere. For one thing, the current Israeli
government won't give in easily and is very adept at protecting its
country's interests. This administration has a great deal of trouble
being tough with anyone.
If in fact the Palestinians and Arabs were eager to make a deal and
energetic about supporting other US policies, the administration might
well be tempted to press for an arrangement that largely ignored
Israeli interests. But this is not the case. It is the Palestinians
who refuse even to come to the negotiating table - and that is
unlikely to change quickly or easily. Arab states won't lift a finger
to help the US on Iran, Iraq or Arab-Israeli issues. So why bother?
MOREOVER, NO matter how much noise the administration makes about
being engaged on the Israel-Palestinian front, it knows that not much
is going to happen. Its envoy, George Mitchell, will run around and
make plans, but the top brass in Washington isn't going to devote all
that much time to this issue.
The hostility to Israel of the administration's overall personnel can
also be exaggerated. A couple of names come to mind of officials who
are hostile, but there are also many - arguably more in number - who
are reasonably friendly, including the secretaries of state and
defense.
The idea that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel constitute some anti-
Israel cabal is misleading, too. If there were a serious peace
process, they'd certainly push Israel harder to make more concessions
than others would, but they are focused on domestic affairs and also
know that this issue is a non-winner for them in terms of success,
glory or political advantage.
These two factors form the basic framework for understanding the
Middle East this year. Putting down a smoke screen of diplomatic
activity and proposals, the US government is likely to place the
"peace process," whose nonexistence is too real to ignore, on the back
burner. Meanwhile, Israel is doing the same thing with an attack on
Iran. The next year's events in the region will come from other crises
and issues.
_________________
hooroo
wally