TOO BUSY WITH LIBYA TO TACKE THE IRAN PROBLEM: AVIGDOR HASELKORN
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9185/pub_detail.asp
Writing in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren argued,
“While the allied intercession in Libya may send a message of determination to Iran, it might also stoke the Iranian regime’s desire to become a nuclear power and so avoid [Libyan leader Col.] Gadhafi’s fate. For that reason it is especially vital now to substantiate the [U.S. and Israel’s] ‘all options [are on the table] policy.’”
Based on the historical record, the Ambassador wrote,
“Only a credible threat of military intervention can convince nondemocratic regimes to abandon their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
The essay could be read in one of two disquieting, if not alarming, ways. The first is that it is as an act of delusional diplomatic advocacy. In the wake of the intervention in Libya, Jerusalem more than ever expects Washington to assume an activist posture versus Iran to deter the latter from proceeding with the bomb. It can even be surmised that save for putting pressure on Washington to act Jerusalem has little to offer in the way of coping with the ever growing Iranian threat to Israel’s existence.
If this is the motive for the Ambassador’s case then the Netanyahu government is simply out of touch. If anything the intervention in Libya should worry Israel greatly. While it can be argued that Iran’s leaders should be alarmed by the assembling of a mighty coalition and the determined action against the Gadhafi regime, and that President Obama’s strategy has enhanced Western deterrence generally and vis-à-vis Iran specifically, on closer examination Tehran is likely to draw comfort from Mr. Obama’s modus operandi.
First, it is now clear that the Obama Administration will not act militarily unless there is an international sanction—preferably a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force—behind it. Moreover, any attack on a target inside a Moslem country will also need the endorsement of the Arab League and/or an international Islamic body. The U.S. will act only as part of a multilateral coalition and its military role will be “supportive” rather than central. Finally, any military action will have to be short-lived, and involve minimum cost in American lives not to mention civilian casualties in the target country.
In addition to all the putative political and military advantages of this approach, Mr. Obama hopes to demonstrate that his use of the U.S. military instrument is in stark contrast to that of his predecessor George Bush. Yet, it is clear that none of the conditions he has adopted is likely to exist when it comes to Iran. Therefore the likelihood that the Obama Administration will preempt the Iranian nuclear program militarily is nil.
If anything, the intervention in Libya threatens to divert Washington for months from the task of tackling the Iranian bomb. If the Libyan operation bogs down, the outcry in the U.S. about its cost (especially given America’s current economic difficulties) and likely consequences is bound to intensify. That would make any further military undertaking by the Obama Administration in the Middle East simply unthinkable. Washington will also abhor any action that might jeopardize the current “democratic revolution” in the Arab world. As a result any American undertaking that smacks from a new imperialist diktat by the West in the Levant will be shunned for the foreseeable future.
An even starker interpretation for the Ambassador’s essay is that it is rooted in diplomatic desperation. By going public, so to speak, Mr. Oren indirectly confirms the mounting frustration in Jerusalem regarding Mr. Obama’s Iran policy. The Israeli envoy is going behind the White House’s “back” to call for U.S. public support in favor of a robust stand vis-à-vis Tehran. Indeed, the article could even be read as recognition in the validity of the above analysis indicating continued American inaction in the face of Iran’s nuclear gambit and a justification in advance for any unilateral Israeli action. A sort of “You, Mr. Obama had left us no choice.” As the Ambassador himself has put it “Does anybody in Tehran believe that all options are truly on the table today? Based on Iran’s brazen pronouncements, the answer appears to be no.”
Although preempting the Iranian nuclear program could be viewed as in tandem with promoting world peace and stability—ideals which theoretically fall within the Obama Administration’s set of flimsy liberal-humanitarian goals warranting the exercise America’s military muscle — the Libyan adventure may have finally persuaded Israel that Mr. Obama will not act militarily against Iran mainly because he fears such an undertaking would make him indistinguishable from President Bush. Indeed, it would be an unparalleled irony if a strong ally of the U.S. had no choice but to act even though this would certainly endanger its security and would likely impinge on U.S. strategic interests because the occupant of the White House at the time was obsessed with separating himself from his predecessor.
The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons, and Deterrence – Hardcover (Feb. 8, 1999) by Avigdor Haselkorn
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Avigdor Haselkorn is the author of The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence (Yale University Press). He has also contributed to American Thinker and Haaretz newspaper.
Comments are closed.
