Almost the entire nation of Israel is obsessed with Iran and the threat the future nuclear-armed state would pose to its existence. Most believe Ehud Olmert’s dubious claim that Iran will have nuclear weapons within a year or so (which no one outside Israel and the White House believes).
No doubt, the Iranian clerics do their damnedest to instill such hysteria with their stupid threats and anti-Semitic bellicosity against the Jewish State. But Israelis literally believe that Iran is out to get Israel and that it will succeed in doing so unless their country and the world stand in the way. A vast number of Israelis believe that some day, and it will come soon, either Israel or the U.S. will have to attack Iran. Some Israelis believe the goal should be only to wipe out the nuclear plants. Others believe the goal should be regime change and hence favor a full invasion of the country. And then there are those who advocate a nuclear attack on Iran.
In truth, there is nothing unusual about such views. Many neocons hold precisely the same ones. But the difference is that in this country such views are in the minority and it will be difficult for George Bush to attack Iran without paying a huge political penalty–one which hopefully he is not willing to pay given his severe political weakness.
All this by way of introducing some sane and rational policy analysis of Iran-Israel relations by Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel’s former foreign minister under Ehud Barak:
The “Iranian syndrome” is Israel’s present fixation. For years, Israel has been telling the world about the Iranian danger, demanding that the international community ostracize the ayatollahs’ regime and enlisting it to fight Iran’s nuclear program. But, like previous preventive strategies, this one is not likely to succeed either.
…The limitations of Israel’s deterrence, as exposed in the war in Lebanon, did not help to stop the Iranian race toward nuclear power. There is also no chance that the international community would follow the U.S. into an all-out confrontation with Tehran, or even impose sanctions in it. America lost its ability to form international coalitions in Iraq, and it lost its legitimacy for independent action as well.
The question today is not when Iran will have nuclear power, but how to integrate it into a policy of regional stability before it obtains such power. Iran is not driven by an obsession to destroy Israel, but by its determination to preserve its regime and establish itself as a strategic regional power, vis-a-vis both Israel and the Sunni Arab states. The Sunnis are Iran’s natural foe, not Israel. The answer to the Iranian threat is a policy of detente, which would change the Iranian elite’s pattern of conduct.
…Never has the Middle East been more dangerous and volatile than it has been since Saddam Hussein was toppled. The U.S., in destroying Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, is directly responsible for Iran’s current strategic edge, as well as for its audacity.
The U.S. also holds the key to returning Iran to a path of negotiations and international cooperation. But to do this, it must make a decision that would be difficult both for itself and for Israel: It must conduct an open dialogue that would recognize Iran’s regional importance. This would moderate its demeanor and ultimately lead to a gradual change in its regime.
Ben-Ami notes that “saber rattling” emanates from both Iran and Israel and that it satisfies comparable political goals on both sides:
The saber rattling by Israel and Iran is convenient for both. For Israel, presenting itself as the democratic West’s front line in the war against fundamentalist terror and the ayatollahs’ regime is helpful in mobilizing the world against Iran’s nuclear aspirations. But the international community’s capitulation in the face of Iran’s determination has proved just how dubious this approach is.
As for Iran, its venomous attacks on Israel and the Jews are its way of mobilizing the Islamic world to support the Iranian regime and its regional aspirations. To the “Arab world,” Iran is an enemy. But in the Islamic world that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is fostering, Iran has a leadership position. Iran is not so much an enemy of Israel as an enemy of any Israeli-Arab reconciliation process, which would ultimately enable the Sunni Arab world to direct all its forces against the real enemy: Shi’ite Iran and its pretensions to hegemony.
Wisely and sanely, Ben-Ami warns Israeli policymakers away from their tried and true reliance on military force in similar such situations in the past. It won’t work this time he reminds them:
Neither sanctions nor even military action can disperse the doomsday cloud hanging over the region. Only divesting Iran of nuclear arms as part of a comprehensive Israeli-Arab settlement could do so.
Sigh.
Yes what we need to do is talk people with the nice man who keeps threatening to wipe us out because surely what the leader of an expansionist Shiite regime really wants is for us to make a settlement with the Palestinian Hamas government setting up a Sunni state.
If we just do that and let them pound us with rockets and bombs as much as they want, he probably…possibly….maybe won’t nuke us.
Anyway he won’t have nukes next year, why… why it might take a whole 3 or 4 years or even more! Clearly we have nothing to worry about. And the only proper solution is to talk peace. After all it’s worked great and just look at where it’s gotten us with Arafat.
Peace. Peace. Peace. Don’t pay any attention to the madman with all the weapons. He probably won’t invade Poland until the spring.
(Quick side question: how do you people live with yourselves?)
Gee, if I had to choose between the policy analysis of a former Israeli foreign minister & someone who calls himself a Knish–that’s a tough one. What are yr credentials for analysis? You’re an expert on both Iran and Hamas because of what?
And we have no choice but to talk with Iran (unless that is, you’re one of the Ledeenophiles who advocates regime change in Iran accompanied by double barrel nuclear devices down the mullah’s throats. Even Bush & Rice reluctantly are coming to the realization that they have no other serious options. They can’t even get the other Security Council members to agree on sanctions (at least not at this point) let alone anything more drastic.
And actually if Israel resolves its differences with Mahmoud Abbas then it will essentially remove Iran as a regional threat to Israel. There will no longer be an Israeli Palestinian issue for the mullahs to use to make mischief in the region.
Umm, excuse me. Are you sure you read your marching orders from Aipac or Tel Aviv? In case you didn’t know, the current partisan pro-Israel line is that we have months, not years before which Iran will get nuke capacity. You’re off message, Knish.
International nuclear weapons experts estimate that it will be anywhere from 5-10 yrs before Iran has that capability. Where do you get your sources from?
Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, South Africa, the list goes on & on. Actually talking peace does work great when it’s approached seriously & sincerely by both opposing parties (which can’t be said in the case of Israel or the Palestinians).
Araft’s been dead lo these many yrs. Yet you pro-Israel hacks like to invoke his ghost whenever there’s an actual Palestinian leader who really does want to negotiate seriously with Israel & come to a final resolution of the conflict. It’s oh so inconvenient to have to say what you really believe which is the eternal NO to negotiation or compromise with all Palestinians of whatever stripe & for all time. Arafat is such a convenient whipping boy even though he hasn’t been running anything lately except perhaps his particular circle of Hell.
Ah yes, I should’ve known you’d drag out that tired old trope of the pro-Israel hack crowd: Iran=Nazi Germany, Ahmadinejad=Hitler. Only someone with an absolute ignorance of history could throw around such spurious generalizations.
I have no problem living with myself, it’s sharing the planet with jerks like you that’s difficult.
Let’s see the foreign minister of a disastrous administration booted out of office by Israelis, that offered Arafat everything on a plate, lied to the public about it and left in disgrace? Serious analysis? It’s like getting your serious analysis from ex-Carter administration officials. Or Carter himself but never mind that.
To keep it short and sweet, you have absolutely no credible basis for claiming that Iran’s intentions towards Israel would change if a peace deal was being done. In fact in case you haven’t noticed Iran has been strenously against peace with Israel and has funded terrorist groups with that exact intent.
Your argument comes down to claiming that if we do something that Iran doesn’t want us to do anyway, they’ll leave us alone. Will there be unicorns too?
You still haven’t suggested why you possess keener intellectual powers of analysis than Ben Ami. But you don’t like him, fine. I can quote Israeli generals like former chief of staff Yaalon, who just denounced both the Lebanon war & Israel’s refusal to negotiate a settlement with Syria. Perhaps you’d like to claim that your bromides are more incisive than his?
There are scores of Israel generals, Shin Bet chiefs, Israeli academics, Israeli journalists who all say (& they are quoted & linked here in this blog) the key to resolving the crisis with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians is negotiation. Who can you quote? Benyamin Netanyahu? Avigdor Lieberman? Mighty persuasive.
You are a flat out liar. The Israelis did not offer Arafat “everything.” If they had there would’ve been an agreement. They withheld territory fr. the deal which caused it to fail. As for leaving in disgrace, this is only in yr fevered imagination. You are far more a disgrace to the interests of the State of Israel than Shlomo Ben Ami.
It almost doesn’t matter what Iran’s intentions are after there is a final settlement. Iran only resonates as a regional power broker because there is no resolution of the I-P conflict. After there is one, no Arab states will be looking to Iran (except perhaps Iraq, but that’s a diff. story) for leadership on anything. Iran will gain no traction in its battle against Israel after there is a settlement because no other states will find any reason to follow them. Right now, Iran’s bellicosity only registers because there is so much fertile ground for it with the current horrors emanating fr. the Israeli Occupation.