Howard Schneider, writing in the Washington Post, reports that Israel is prepared to support the Obama administration’s effort to seek support for further sanctions on Iran.
It is difficult to imagine that either the United States or Israel thinks that further sanctions will actually compel Iran to make meaningful concessions on its nuclear program. Sanctions have never worked in the past and will likely make it easier for the Islamic Republic to gain popular support for the program.
One particularly troubling aspect of Schneider’s article is this quote from Emily Landau of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies. “As long as Obama is engaged in some kind of diplomatic effort, Israel is going to wait and see how it plays out. It is in Israel’s interest for it to be dealt with diplomatically. The military option is only getting more and more difficult.”
According to this logic, the United States should seek to impose more sanctions as a way to postpone an Israeli military strike against Iran. Instead, the Obama administration should call Israel’s bluff and make it clear to the Israelis that it deems a military strike absolutely unacceptable and that it intends to seek a strategic rapprochement with the Islamic Republic instead.
The Obama administration cannot allow its Iran “engagement” strategy to be dictated by Israeli military threats.
– Ben Katcher
I disagree with A. Evans that Israel will only strike with U.S. permission. I also think he overestimates the military’s influence over Obama. On the latter point, Obama did not do everything McChrystal wanted. The latter’s dream escalation involved 80,000 more troops. Of course, the military asks for 80,000 hoping to get 40,000. Obama did give them most of what they wanted, but not everything. As long as Obama has Gates and Jones on his national security team, he will be able to push back against the generals (and admirals).
As for the Israelis striking Iran, they valued their relationship with the Bush-Cheney administration too much to make war without a U.S. go-ahead. They don’t have the same relationship with Obama, and moreover his popularity in the U.S. is declining. If they perceive a need to strike, they will do so. Obama could prevent this only if he’s riding high in the polls at home. Right now his popularity is down, and it’s unlikely it will go up much over the next 18 months, the critical time period within the cycle that ends with the next U.S. presidential election.
Happy New Year, Lars. What is your home country? From your name it would seem to be either Sweden, Norway or Denmark.
Hello to all. This blog I am liking much. I am Lars in the US for holiday wishing all a Happy New Year to you also.
One lesson of Afghanistan is the Obama does what his generals tell him to do.
As long as the generals are against a strike, there will not be a strike. If the generals approve of a strike, it will be done with US forces. There is nearly no chance at all that Israel would be involved in a strike against Iran as far as I can see.
Israel couldn’t go without US permission under Bush, Israel can’t go without US permission under Obama.
The Bush administration supported Israeli military action in theory, but the difficulties in Iraq made a military move impossible, given the mischief Iran could have caused there. First the surge and then the U.S. presidential election made an Israeli move more than problematic. And the appointment of Gates (an opponent of military action) definitely meant no Israeli or U.S. strikes.
The neocons, pleased with Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan, believe he can be led to the “proper” decision on Iran. Their program is: 1. Impose further sanctions. 2. Proclaim, after a decent interval, that sanctions have failed. 3. Send in the air force. I personally don’t believe Obama can be persuaded to launch U.S. strikes on Iran, but I do believe he is too weak a leader to prevent the Israelis from attacking. I have been predicting an Israeli attack in 2011; I think it may come in 2010, given the internal crisis in Iran. I would put the odds of an Israeli attack over the next 24 months at about 70-30 in favor.
How do we get off this train? I don’t see it happening. We are too tied in with Israel for that. When the ball drops on this, it will mark the beginning of a general crisis (as opposed to a short term one) with new problems unfolding over time, not the least of which will be the ascent of China to the position of world power No. 1.
Theoretically, there is a military option in Iran. One can declare war, raise an army of 1,000,000 troops, invade and occupy the country for 10 years. Under such a scenario the “problem” of the nuclear program would be “solved.” However, this would require both the introduction of conscription and an increase in taxation that would finish off the American economy. Both are nonstarters; either would lead to a very serious internal crisis in the U.S., possibly spelling finis d’Amerique.
Is Israel in a position to bomb Iran? They could have done it during Bush era with whole heareted support from US and for that matter other US allies. I thing they have missed their golden opportunity to do so.
But now things have changed a lot. The mighty IDF could not achieve it’s objective in Lebanon and Gaza. The Gazans fought with the mightiest war machine of the region with light and home made armaments. IDF opted for all possible ways they have at their disposal to destroy Hezbolla and Hamas. Forbiden weapons like White phosphorous bombs were used indiscriminantly on unarmed civilians in Lebanon and Gaza. Homes, Mosques, Educational institutes, Hospitals and even UN establisheent were not spared in their campaign. To the despair of Gazans saw the so called civilized world including their Arab neighbours took the role of mere spectators. But home made rockets kept coming from Gaza to Israel. Israel could not stop them. Hezbolla and Hamas proved invincibility of IDF is nothing but a myth.
Iran is altogether a different proposition. Iran did not attack any country in the last many centuries. If she is attacked, Iran will definitely retliate with brut force.
Iran can sustain the Israely attack due to Iranian psyche of martyredome and the vast size of the country. Israel cannot expect to ruin the whole country and destroy everything there with even most powerful armaments they possess even the use Nuclear warheads.
But the question is whether Israel can survive and sutain in the event of Iranian Missile attack on Tel Aviv or Heifa!!! Iran has the capability of attacking any part Israel with the missiles they developed during last decade. When Israel is ready to exchange thousands of Palestinian prisoners in exchange of one IDF soldier held hy Hamas, such question is relevent!!