Over the past month hysteria over a possible war with Iran has reached a new crescendo. Pundits, government officials and presidential candidates have been debating ad nauseam about issues such as whether Iran is an existential threat to Israel, whether deterrence will work, whether air strikes would be effective, whether Iran is entering a “zone of immunity”, the effect of Iranian nuclear weapons on the Middle East balance of power, the nature of an Iranian response, etc. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius ignited a fire storm when he said that Defense Secretary Panetta “ believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.” (See here)
The Obama administration has weighed into the fray with a series of statements which have sent mixed signals about U.S. policy and only served to increase the rhetoric. In a series of speeches and interviews Secretary Panetta stressed his belief that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that a military strike would at best delay any future production of a nuclear weapon. Secretary of State Clinton on the other hand took a more hawkish tone saying in discussing Iran’s expansion of its enrichment site near Qom, "The circumstances surrounding this latest action are especially troubling. There is no plausible justification for this production. Such enrichment brings Iran a significant step closer to having the capability to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium." (See here) James Clapper, U.S. director of national intelligence raised the stakes by claiming, during Congressional testimony. that Iran is now more willing to carry out attacks inside the U.S. and that intelligence agencies were worried about attacks on U.S. interests around the world. President Obama, on the other hand, said that he did not believe that Iran had the “intentions or capabilities” to attack inside the United States.
I am persuaded that the Obama administration has decided that it does not want war with Iran. If it wanted war, it could have attacked any time in the past three years, rather than waiting until just before the elections. Ignatius reports that Israel believes that it would be a short war. “‘You stay to the side, and let us do it,’ one Israeli official is said to have advised the United States. A short-war scenario assumes five days or so of limited Israeli strikes, followed by a U.N.-brokered cease-fire.” Make no mistake; a military strike is an act of war. As the U.S. found to its pain in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy has a say in how long the war lasts.
If Obama doesn’t want another major Middle East war right before the elections, he had better say to Israel, not only no, but hell no! To do this he will need to make the case for diplomacy and defy the Israel Lobby. Is this likely in an election year? Probably not.
No comments:
Post a Comment