Thank God for realists. And I just wish there were a few more of ’em within the Bush Administration’ and the Shin Bet and IDF military intelligence. Ephraim Kam of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies released a report earlier this month on the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel, A Nuclear Iran: What Does It Mean, What Can Be Done (pdf). If you’ve been reading the bellicosity of folks like Dick Cheney and the Israeli government rattling their sabers for war, you’ll be amazed at the sanity and level-headedness of this study. Would that Israeli policymakers read it and memorized it.
I should make clear that these are not wild-eyed radicals claiming that Iran poses no threat to Israel. They make clear that they believe it may pose a threat. And for that reason they support preparing a military option–just in case. But here are the rest of their judgments as reported by Haaretz:
As Iran formulates its nuclear policy, it will have to decide on one of three options:…b) to adopt a policy of nuclear ambiguity – to produce nuclear weapons, but to avoid making their existence public and testing them, in the hope of averting further pressure on Tehran; and c) to produce nuclear weapons, announce their existence and possibly also to carry out a test.
The study suggests that Iran will prefer the second option “which appears most likely, at least in the first stage.”
The third option is the “most problematic one for Iran,” say the researchers. The tendency of the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to challenge the international community…and the chance that Iran could be influenced by the North Korean example…may, however, lead to the last, more threatening possibility.
The researchers warn about the dangers of pursuing the military option against Iran:
…This is a very problematic and complex operation that involves many risks including an open-ended Iranian response. Moreover, a military operation is not guaranteed. At this stage the political conditions are also not ripe for an operation, so long as the diplomatic efforts continue.
While the Jaffee study concedes that a nuclear Iran will pose unique and unprecedented dangers to Israel. It also suggests:
…That one must assume that a nuclear Iran will act logically, rationally evaluating the price and risks involved in its actions, and will not act out of religious-ideological motives. If one makes this assumption, then one appreciates that Iran’s motives for acquiring nuclear weapons “are defensive, [and to be used protectively] against Iraq in the past and against the U.S. today.”
This is perhaps the most telling conclusion of the document:
“It is reasonable to assume that also in the future Iran will opt to retain this type of weapons as a final card to use against extreme threats, and that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential interest worthy of using such weapons.”
The report also assumes that the likelihood that Iran will transfer nuclear arms to terrorist organization is minimal.
In other words, Iran is worried much more about dangers on its own border (and about a U.S. attack) than it is about eliminating Israel.
Instead of pursuing a military first-strike against Iran, Kam suggests:
Making a clear and convincing message that if Israel is attacked by nuclear weapons, it will still retain a counter-strike capability “with severe consequences.”
There you have it. The voice of reason in case anyone wants to hear it. Would that reason trumped ideology and illusion.
Thanks to Seashell at TPMCafe for alerting me to this story.
i dont know what should i say. i became a reader of your weblog and i hopeto become a closer friend of you too. i thought that you r against war , and war makers at all , and i believe that right now , but , you supporting israel, and everybody knows ( at least Me under pressure of our media ) that israel began a war on palestine. and its a paradox in my mind.
and about Iran attack , nuclear iran , and so on : we have an idiot dont know what he is saying! and you know it . but cant say his name! he is not dangerous i swear! he is so harmful for us in our country ! but not for you! people in iran wish a wold without war. a world in friendship . one day a great man said : i have a dream! and today , as a teenager as a little man , i say : i have a dream , that one day , sons of the human , will be able to sit together , colored and white , at the table of brotherhood.
i know , when you r reading my comments , you laugh to me , or even you r angry for my stupid words. but its the only way i can tell the foreign community that iranians are not dangerous! and the only way to talk to other people.
oh , a question : is barack obama a jewish? im sorry but i think hillary clinton is better. i dont know why.
Amir: Perhaps you didn’t understand what I wrote. I AM against a war with Iran whether it is Israel or the U.S. that attacks. While I do support Israel, I do not support an attack on your country.
I assure you I do not laugh at you. I value your participation here and I worry for your welfare should the worst happen.
Barack Obama is African-American and not Jewish. Hillary Clinton is much less sympathetic to your country & its leadership than you seem to realize.
i enjoy reading your weblog as it helps me to understandt the positions of what is called the american jewish left. As a christian, i once supported israel blindly and was oblivious to any of the palestinians claims. I have read jimmy carters book on the palestinian/israeli situation and listened to the webcast of his visit to brandeis and read about the hullabaloo surrounding the dean of that university, and the upset donors who are forcing this academic institution to stifle the exchange of ideas on a college campus. It has been an eye opening experience for me to learn how the aipac lobby and the zionist jewish american organizations in america oppress anyone who has dared to stand up and take a position apart from theirs, george stephanopolous had jimmy carter on his weekend show “this week in washington” and on that show president carter went on to say, live over the air waves, that members of our congress would be commiting political suicide if they dont kowtow to the aipac lobby, he said that they fear being tagged as anti semitc, i can not understand why the press does not pick up on these issues and deal with them openly before the american public.
good luck to you in your quest to help your people separate themselves from these zionist oppressors before the american public wakes up and jumbles you all in one large group.
Whoa. That’s a little too much rhetoric for me. I consider myself a progressive Zionist so let’s be clear that there are a number of varieties of Zionists out there. Let’s not lump all of us together as one evil bunch.
i understand, like i said before, i am glad to have found these blogs expressing the moderate voice among jewish americans, i am learning a lot from reading them. i also see how your ( the lefts) positions are disparaged, the rosenfeld write up was an attempt to threaten the dissenting jewish voice with the epithet of anti semite if you do not support israel. Did you see the ariel toaf story? he is the professor who wrote the book that he claimed he would defend even if crucified ( his own words from an haaretz write up), and a short time later must have had been forced to cease and desist. it is an ugly pressure to have to live under. My parents lived under one of those bolshevik communist governments where free speech is never heard and when it dares to raise its voice, it is suffocated with threats and repressive oppression. We are living in interesting times. i am just a student of these events and am watching them develop like a picture from an old polaroid camera. i read the israeli press along with a few jewish newspapers here in the u.s to learn how this community is evolving within this struggle, i cut my teeth on this issue with the orthodox groups that are not zionist, jews against zionism,true torah jews and the karaites, i prefer their position since i believe it to be more in line with the GOD of the old testament.
best of wishes to you richard.
Richard,
I understand very well that you are a Zionist and a progressive Zionist, and what that means, but i don’t think you can deny that the oppression Mr Burke refers to stems from certain very widespread and longstanding interpretations of Zionist ideology (including the ultitutde of “Christian Zionists.”) I agree it’s very mportant to point out the distinction, but it’s your “Whoa” and the “too much rhetoric” that I’m reacting to. It seems to me the term “Zionist oppression” is a perfectly objective and defensible term. If you, as a Zionist, are uncomfortable with it, well that’s understandable, it’s in the nature of the position you find yourself in — but that’s hardly Mr Burke’s fault.
If you could honestly argue that these people (who, I am afraid, are are actively or passively the majority of Zionists) are NOT Zionists at all — are betraying the principles of Zionism — well, do so by all means. The world could use such a fundamental analysis. The late Yeshayahu Leibowitz did SOMETHING like that in arguing that “Zionism” is not an ideology, it’s only a framework. Unfortunately, for almost everyone but him it does seem to be an ideology, and certainly one with a very heavy propaganda component.
I think something very similar exists among orthodox Jews. The majority of Orthodox Jews today are Zionists, but there is a very sizeable minority that are not. Except that among that minority are many that are just as extreme against Palestinians, or even more so, and just as fanatical, or more so. So those that are orthodox and truly againt what israel is doing to the Palestinians are a minority of a minority. i always rejoice to meet such Jews, but i do not meet them very often.
Nevertheless, even among the Neturei Karta, you will rarely hear them admit this obvious fact. Their version is that Zionism is a secular ideology (which it is), but they ignore the fact that thanks to the great Rav Kook and others it has long since become a religious ideology as well, and one, i would argue, that is utterly distorting the Jewish religion.
Richard,
Whatever you think of the above, it seems we’ve gotten off on a tangent from your actual post. So I want to say, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT NEWS. There is no more serious issue right now than Iran and the battle of the psychopaths, Bush/Cheney and Ahminejad. only Bush/Cheney are in reality far more dangerous. My actual reaction to this post was this; we Jews certainly have the resources to develop a rational policy for Israel and the Middle East. The big problem is control of the media, and “muzzling” of people, Jews and non-Jews, who have alternatives. the Internet is an enormous help, but on the other side we have Fox News, CNN, and the rest. You know all this, I’m just saying, that IS the issue. We need something like a Jewish “Netroots” movement. Which i hope can arise out of blogs like yours. — I can encapsulate my position in one sentence. I think that AIPAC is far more dangerous to Jews than iran is.
But I do. That’s virtually the premise of this blog.
I do not posit a Zionism that exists at the expense at another people. That posits supremacy of the Jewish people over minorities within Israel and Israel’s Arab neighbors. Anyone with such an exclusivist vision does not represent my vision of Zionism. I cannot stop such people fr. calling themselves Zionist. But I am unalterable opposed to their vision.
I very much respected Leibowitz. He was a great thinker. There is a progressive stream among Orthodox Zionists & I have great respect for them as well. Rabbi Menachem Froman is another interesting figure you may’ve heard of.
Looking back i noticed that my ramblings were not directly related to the issue under which i posted, for that i apologize. But let me add, that it is my belief that the issue i brought forth is what i consider to be the issue, and that is, that in america a person whether jewish or gentile can be called an anti semite simply for questioning israels policies. Anti semitism conjures up very sad thoughts about what the human character can stoop to when they have bigoted ideas about another group of people who may be different due to a religious belief. today the united states is leading a crusade on islam, this is something for which i as a christian am very much concerned, because christianity with it’s preachers ( not all of course), seems to be leading the way, as a christian it shames me to see what these preachers are doing, all because they profess some kind of zeaolous love for israel.
God help us all.
I agree with you that accusations of anti-Semitism from the right concerning anyone who criticizes Israel are absolutely dead wrong. I should add that regularly these same people accuse me of being a traitor to my own people. It’s really odious and hateful beyond belief.
I appreciate the moderation & tolerance of yr religious views and wish that the Christian Zionists shared some of your willingness to embrace both peoples warring over this small piece of sacred ground.
richard, the israelis and the aipac lobby are both counting on the christian zionist as a fifth column to be called on to defend israel when needed.
we will see it in the near future, they make strange bedfellows indeed. the christian zionist are rabbid about the islamic movement, on the one hand they are preaching the gospel of salvation and on the other they are calling for the anhiliation of the radicals. what a sad message indeed, and all in HIS name.
good luck richard.