Ehud Olmert is packing his bags for the flight to Washington where he’ll meet with President Bush and Condi Rice. Their two major topics of conversation will be Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, specifically the expected Palestinian national unity government; and Iran’s nuclear programs. Ephraim Sneh, current deputy defense minister, senior Labor MK and former IDF senior commander, “did an Olmert” by acting as Olmert’s stalking horse in a Friday interview in the Jerusalem Post (or read the transcript of the full interview). You’ll recall that whenever Ariel Sharon wanted to say or do something especially bellicose, like threaten to assassinate Yaser Arafat, he had Olmert do the dirty work for him so Sharon’s hands wouldn’t be seen to be unclean.
In a similar way, Sneh warned the world in the interview that Israel would not stand idly by and allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability. If the U.S. and the world refused to act, Israel would:
Israel must be prepared to thwart Teheran’s drive for a nuclear capability “at all costs,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh has told the Post.
“I am not advocating an Israeli preemptive military action against Iran, and I am aware of all of its possible repercussions,” Sneh stressed. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort.”
…The former IDF brigadier-general described an untenable scenario of Israel “living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction.”
He said he was afraid that, under such a threat, “most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched.”
Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, was that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would “be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That’s why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.”
…Sneh said he still hoped the international community would institute effective sanctions against Iran, but that “the chances are not high… My working assumption is that they won’t succeed.”
Interviewed in his Knesset office, Sneh said his priority was to define Israel’s national goals, including “preparing the IDF for victory in the next round with Iran and its proxies.”
Lest we glorify this man’s military strategic abilities, we should remember that he commanded Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and Israel’s creation of the proxy puppet South Lebanese Army. He’s the military man who let Sabra and Shatilla happen though Sharon himself shares the lion’s share of blame.
But whatever one has to say about Sneh’s military abilities, you have to admit that this is a serious shot across Iran’s (and the world’s) bow. He is telling the Security Council: “if you can’t deal with the Iran mess, we will. And if we do it, we’ll do it our way, not yours. So do something or else deal with the consequences.” This is typical Israeli bravado and braggadocio in which threats and bullets substitute for real diplomatic policy. Unfortunately though, that doesn’t mean we can dismiss Sneh as a raving lunatic. As we saw in Lebanon, the lunatics seem to be running the asylum these days as far as the IDF and Israeli political leadership are concerned. In other words, anything Sy Hersh was concerned about the U.S. doing to Iran including using nuclear bunker busting bombs against Iranian nuclear facilities, he should be doubly and triply concerned about regarding Israel’s potential role in this.
George Bush and Dick Cheney have both recently admitted that they saw Israel as their potential warrior proxy regarding Iran. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the plan when Olmert meets with them would be to come up with various scenarios and decide how they respond. Will the U.S. attack Iran if the UN fails? Or will Israel do it? And if either does it how will they do it and what will they need from their partner? So, the upcoming meeting is something of a war parley between the two allies. And if Israel needs any of those bunker busters from the U.S. they’ll be sure to get them as they did in the Lebanon war.
But we need to ask whether Israel, even if it uses its considerable might against Iran can hope to succeed in attaining its goals. I am certain that it will fail. Even if it succeeds in knocking out the nuclear program (a highly dubious proposition), such Israeli adventurism will deeply destabilize both the Mideast and the world. If we here in the U.S. think we’re hated now, it will appear like a walk in the park compared to the hatred we will endure if we allow our proxy to do our dirty work for us. Our enemies, not just Iran or Al Qaeda, will be spurred by immense reservoirs of hate and thirst for revenge. My Mideast Doomsday Clock will be set to 30 seconds to midnight. This would be about as bad as it could get short of a full-theater, multi-nation war.
Israeli commentators are stating that they see even less likelihood after the election defeat that the U.S. would attack Iran than before. Which means that the job may go to the IDF after all. Hence, Sneh’s opening verbal salvo.
Iran fully understands the meaning of the gesture and has protested to the UN about the threat made against it by a fellow member of the General Assembly (a serious violation of UN rules). But what good such a protest will do considering how badly Iran is thought of by much of the rest of the world (outside of the Arab world–and perhaps within it as well). Iran’s statements and actions regarding the nuclear issue and Israel have done nothing to win it any friends except in places like Cuba, Russia (perhaps), Lebanon (perhaps), Bolivia, and Venezuela. Not much company.
And returning to Sneh’s comments about an Israel drained of population by the fear of such a nuclear attack, this is utterly preposterous. Israel has been under attack many times in its existence–notably in 1948 and 1967. Israelis steeled themselves rather ran away. He is talking about his own countrymen and women as if they are turncoat cowards. This is deeply insulting to Israelis. No Iranian threat will have such an impact on Israel.
What really causes Israelis to emigrate and potential immigrants to hesitate is the constant state of war which Israel provokes with its neighbors (not that they aren’t helping in propagating this state as well). And Sneh’s bellicosity only worsens these fears. What Israeli mother wants to see her child serve in a war in which he or she might be killed? Yet, to their credit, most Israelis do precisely this; even though their leaders and generals do not deserve such loyalty. So it is Sneh and Halutz who create the atmospherics which discourage aliyah (immigration) and encourage yeridah (emigration).
I am not intending to belittle the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon. But calm and patience is required in dealing with this prospect rather than saber rattling. Despite Israeli claims (i.e. “lies”) to the contrary, Iran will take years before it can weaponize any nuclear material. There is no urgency whatsoever in attacking Iran now. No need to decide the matter now.
So why do so? One very good reason. After the savage Beit Hanun massacre, and the ensuing black eye Israel received for killing 18 innocent Gaza civilians in their sleep, Olmert is desperate to change the channel. How else to do that by dramatically changing the subject. His thinking is, you do this by talking about Iran’s nuclear weapon, which nobody in the world wants and regarding which everyone sympathizes (or so Olmert believes) with Israel as an almost certain target. Et voila, presto chango, the subject is changed. Israel goes from monster to victim overnight. “Nice work if you can get it,” as the song lyric says.
Richard,
Shavuah Tov. The events of the past week really got me thinking in a personal way about my anger and rage at the injustice in Palestine and ME in general. I wrote a bit about it last nite – ‘White Man’s Truth’ – and would appreciate your perspective. I know that many of my usual readers – Israeli and American family and friends – are going to have a particular reaction and maybe feel a bit uncomfortable with it. So if you have time.. thanks.
Regarding Sneh’s comments, Phrases like ‘trial balloon’, ‘lets throw it against the wall and see if it sticks’ and ‘lets run it up the flagpole and see who salutes’ come to mind. Not a surprising comment coming from Israel but that doesn’t make it any less worrisome.
Richard,
I’d dispute your comment that Iran’s statements about Israel and the nuclear issue haven’t won it many friends. To the contrary in the Middle East, even in Sunni countries where the schism between Sunni and Shi’i schools of thought has been played up in the past, developments in Iran and the recent attack on Lebanon have made the Shi’i unexpectedly popular. Where you’d never have expected it you hear talk of a rapprochement.
In the face of open conflict between Sunni and Shi’i communities in Iraq, a few weeks ago a meeting was held in Makkah involving Iraqi scholars from both sects, that resulted in the issuance of a religious ruling that attacks on either community were forbidden (given the reasons behind the attacks, and their authors, it’s doubtful that will have an immediate effect, but the significance of it, given past history of relations between the two communities, is huge).
As for what you mention about the bellicosity of Israel’s neighbours, don’t forget that Egypt and Jordan have (admittedly ‘cold’) peace treaties with Israel, Syria has been asking for talks (rejected by Israel), and the Saudis have had a solid peace offer on the table (rejected off-hand) for some time. As I mentioned to you in private correspondence, even Iran is more misquoted than malign, though they’re not exactly the greatest fans.
Still, if Israel really wants peace, it seems to me the door is more than a little ajar. If they really want to put an end to this seemingly endless conflict, the logical thing is to start talking. Unfortunately Israel and America seem to be graduates of the same school of ‘diplomacy’, which taught them that ‘negotiation’ only begins after the other side capitulates to a long list of pre-conditions.
I think that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders, Iran would still be a foe of Israel. Iran, like Venezuela, needs a bogeyman to keep its population diverted from its failures at home. This is why Chavez and Ahmadinejad have focused on Jews. Why did Iran bomb the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires? Was it Zionist occupation of Argentina? I think that 5 minutes after Iran had nukes, they would launch them at Israel. Even if Israel retailiated, it would provide Iran street cred and if Iranian civilians were killed in nuclear retaliation, the mullahs would rationalize it in A) The unemployment rate would go down, and B) The old saying “Allah knows his own”, in which people who are destined to become martyrs eventually become martyrs
I was referring to the long history of deep mistrust & animosity between Saudi Arabia & Iraqi Sunnis on the 1 hand, & Iran on the other. There are also large swaths of non-Shiite Lebanon that have no great love for Iran. If there is a rapprochement bet. Sunnis & Shiites that leads to Iran maintaining a stronger role in the Arab world, then Israel & the U.S. have only themselves to blame for this as their hostility has driven the various Muslims sects into ea. other’s arms.
Not sure what you’re referring to regarding the “bellicosity” of Israel’s neighbors. I certainly concede that the front line states have by no means been bellicose (except for Hezbollah). But Hamas & Hezbollah have certainly made bellicose statements which fuel anxiety among Israelis about their long-term goals & intentions. And you are perfectly right about Syria opening the door wide to negotiations. I’ve written about this here & taken Olmert to task for missing yet another opportunity for peace.
I don’t have much more faith in Iran’s present government than you. But this is preposterous. If Iran had nukes it is certainly much more likely that either Iran or Israel or both would use them. But that by no means guarantees that such a catastrophe would happen.
You, sir, are entirely naive when it comes to understanding the impact of nuclear attack. There would be millions of victims on both sides and the nations’ economies would take years, probably decades to recover if they ever did.
The difference is that what happened in Beit Hanoun was an accident for which Israel apologized for and is reviewing procedures to try to make sure it doesn’t happen again. While Iran is developing news with the explicit goal of destroying Israel.
It is not alarmism or improper to point out the genocidal threat that is Iran.
I’m not sure where Beit Hanun fits in this.
I’m not claiming that Iran is not a threat to Israel or that saying so is alarmist. But claiming that Iran will get nukes in months or a few years and that it must be attacked now rather than waiting for diplomacy & negotiations to take their course IS alarmism. About the worst thing that either Bush or Olmert could do right now is attack Iran.
Richard Silverstein’s critique is no less than brilliant, but who will see it, much less heed it, as we seem to be moving inexorably toward yet another tragic confrontation in the Middle East, spurred on by the usual war-drum beaters in Israel and the United States? It is insane and it is evil, what is now happening. As Richard Silverstein has so succinctly put it, “…we must ensure Israel’s long term survival through peace, rather than war.“ This strikes me as so obvious that speaking and working against its premise seems utterly insane. Remember the child who proclaimed that “The Emperor has no clothes!”? And yet insanity seems to me to be the path we are pursuing in this latest example of the symbiotic dance macabre of the Israeli/American Axis. Israel, if not all Israelis, certainly since the ascendancy of the Likud, seems bent on chasing after its own Manifest Destiny, just as the United State pursues its own peculiar 21st Century brand of that evil expasionist philosophy, which brooks no opposition and indeed today condemns those who oppose it as Chamberlains, traitors and cowards. The recent elevation of Avigdor Lieberman in Israel is alarmingly suggestive of the spirit of Ehud Olmert’s present visii to this coutry, immediately following Israel’s latest outrage against the Palestinian people. My God, but the protagonist of THE KING OF HEARTS at the end of that movie was totally sane and logical to enter the insane asylum bare-assed naked in order to escape the world of the sane ones. Thank you, Mr. Silverstein, for so bravely declaring that, indeed, “The Emperor has no clothes!” Whether PNAC’s mantras or the all-of-Judaea-Samaria-is-ours chant, it all boils down to an über-alles philosophy.