Rory McCarthy for the Guardian Unlimited
Senior Israeli officials warned today they were still considering the option of a military strike against Iran, despite a fresh US intelligence report that concluded Tehran was no longer developing nuclear weapons.
Although Israel argues that it wants to see strong diplomatic pressure put on Iran, it is reluctant to rule out the threat of a unilateral military attack. Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defence minister, told Army Radio today: “No option needs to be off the table.”
Avigdor Lieberman, the hard-right deputy prime minister, said Israel should be ready to act if sanctions did not work. “If they don’t, we will sit and decide whatever we have to decide,” he told the Jerusalem Post in an interview today.
Several of Israel’s Iran experts say the American rethink on the threat posed by Iran had ruled out a US military strike and probably an Israeli strike too, at least for now. However, Israel’s political hawks continue to keep the threat of action alive.
Binyamin Netanyahu, the popular rightwing opposition leader, was asked whether Israel should launch its own military operation. “We always prefer international action, led by the United States, but we have to ensure that we can protect our country with all means,” he told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz today.
The repercussions of the new US intelligence assessment are consuming Israeli politicians, analysts and the press. Although Israeli leaders had been briefed in advance, the national intelligence estimate (NIE) which was declassified and published on Monday, brought surprise and frustration in Israel’s defence establishment.
In a marked shift from earlier assessments, the NIE said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in autumn 2003 and had not restarted it. America’s intelligence agencies said they now did not know whether Iran intended to build nuclear weapons.
Israeli officials quickly offered a direct challenge. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, said although Iran’s nuclear programme was halted in 2003 “as far as we know it has probably since revived it”.
It is, however, far from clear whether Israel has its own unique intelligence on Iran strong enough to contradict the American findings. Ha’aretz noted in an analysis today: “It wasn’t in the intelligence arena that Israel suffered a blow this week, but rather in the public opinion arena.”
Some have suggested that with Israel feeling isolated by its hardline stance on Iran, it might be more inclined to launch a unilateral military strike and a comparison is frequently drawn to Israel’s 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. David Albright, a former UN nuclear inspector, said this week if Israel felt its “red line” had been crossed it might strike. “They may force a military confrontation,” he told the Associated Press agency.
However, it is widely assumed Israel would need at least American approval if not cooperation for any bombing mission. In particular, Israel’s air force would need the US flight codes that would allow its planes to cross safely into Iran. When Israel requested those codes in 1991, to attack Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during the first Gulf War, the United States refused and there was no Israeli strike.
Yet Israel, the only nuclear power in the region, is not shy of acting alone and has been heartened by the lack of international censure over its bombing raid in northern Syria in September, which may or may not have targeted a Syrian nuclear installation.
Israel’s Iran experts argue that the US intelligence assessment did not wholly exonerate Tehran – they point to evidence of a continued enriched uranium programme which has only limited civilian use – but they admit that for now an Israeli military operation is unlikely.
“I think it is quite unrealistic to think Israel will go it alone against Iran in a military way,” said Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. He said it appeared Iran would respond to a tougher sanctions regime that demonstrated to Tehran that the cost of its nuclear ambitions outweighed their benefits.
Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born analyst based in Tel Aviv, said there was also a chance Israel might pursue a peace agreement with Syria, in an effort to divide Damascus from Tehran and further isolate the Iranian regime. “The quickest route to isolate Iran is through Damascus,” he said.
Israel shouldn’t strike. Many recent pentagon press releases and statements on topics other than Iran explicitly state that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. The pentagon wouldn’t explicit state this so many times unless Gates, the Joint Chiefs and top generals believed this to be true and ordered that this message be pushed out.
The US government (or at least the Gates/Rice faction) is trying hard to reach an accommodation with Iran at the moment:
http://soldiersdad2.blogspot.com/2007/12/nie-opening-to-iran.html
http://soldiersdad2.blogspot.com/2007/12/failing-to-comprehend.html
SD2 was deeply involved with US efforts with respect to Iran in the 1970s and 1980s. He knows his stuff. He prefers a low profile and doesn’t like his role to be explicitly discussed. So I will honor his wishes. But I have a lot of respect for him, his knowledge about the middle east, his knowledge of intelligence and US military matters, and his judgment.
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher’s arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
@Alex: I am not sure whether your question is directed at Anand or me, but in the latter case I think that Obadiah Shoher will get exactly what he wants: war.
“Peace process doesn’t lead to peace. Concessions to Arabs and imploring for peace only provoke them for the last-ditch fighting. That correlation is clear at least since the Oslo accords.” Incorrect, most Israelis and Palestinians understand that they bennefit from the success of the other. There is a confusion between the majority of good palestinians who want to live in peace beside (and in collaboration with) their Israeli brothers, and a small minority of Jihadi extremists (that the large majority of good palestinians can’t stand) who need serious medical treatment, or barring that a quick journey to the Lord Almighty.
“Peace process cannot lead to peace. If history is any lesson, peace is only achieved through crushing defeat of one’s enemy.” No, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God” (Matthew 5:9).
“Peace process is highly unusual. Every other nation destroyed whatever aborigines happened to live on the land that nation chose to build a state.” Many countries such as India and modern North America/Australaisia have been built by welcoming immigrants from everywhere and incorporating them into a rich fabric.
“Peace process is illegal. The original arrangement for the Jewish state included Transjordan, but the British illegally cut it off. Then the UN further partitioned Israel to accommodate Palestinian Arabs.” Incorect under internationl law.
“Peace process is immoral. Palestinian Arabs don’t constitute a nation. Offering them a state is a plot against Jews.” Most Jews love Palestinians and want them to succeed. How can a palestinian state be a plot against Jews?
“Peace process doesn’t offer safety. Jews need a secure state rather than a beach strip eight miles wide.” Potentially good point. Security for Palestinians and Isrealis from the forces of darkness is an essential prerequisite for any successful peace agreement that lasts the test of time.
“Peace process runs against Judaism and Jewish history. Jews are attached to the land which the peace process gives to Palestinians: Judea, Samaria, Hebron, Schem, and the Temple Mount. Coastal areas of the modern Israel are irrelevant to Jewish religion or history. Jews could as well settle in Uganda or Arizona.” Jews can still live in these areas as neighbors to their soon to be Palestinians friends, allies, and partners in a desegregated, democratic, plural, free-market, and successful Palestinians state. (I think that the Palestinian state should encourage dual citizenship and encourage as many Israelis as possible to move to and visit the new Palestinians state.)
Peace process is not for real. Israeli government employs the peace process for the sole objective of destroying Jewish religious and nationalist opposition to its rule. Neither security of the Jewish state, nor fulfillment of Jewish objectives are the peace process’ goals. (This is an unfair insinuation. Isreal is a free democracy with patriotic elected public servants committed to the welfare and success of Isreal. May Israel always succeed in her efforts. Long live Israel!)
Peace process is pointless. Israel can settle with Palestinian government, but a sufficient number of Palestinian Arabs would always resent what they think is Jewish occupation of the land of their ancestors. A few thousand such Arabs would always be there, and will always attack Israel employing terrorist tactics. (These Takfiri Jihadi wackos are as much a threat to the good Palestinian majority as they are to Isreal. This is why Palestine and Israel needs to form a close long term alliance to crush the forces of darkness.)
Peace process fails to address the major issue of Israel’s Jewishness. Israeli Arabs already constitute more than a third of Israeli youth. Arabs constitute majority in many important areas of Israel. The area of Lod near Ben Gurion airport is as much hostile to Israel as Gaza. Israel’s real problem is not the Palestinian Authority, but the Israeli Arabs who can field the largest faction in the Knesset ten years from now. (I hope I am not misinterpreting him. But to my American years this sounds like racism. A very ugly sound.)
Peace is not viable in our case. After the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel continues immense military spending. Egypt continues anti-Israeli propaganda and builds an army whose only target is Israel. (I suspect that this is because Egypt and almost every other arab country is still not a free democracy. After they become prosperous free democracies well integrated into the fast growing global economy . . . this will change.)
Peace is not a proper objective. Jews moved into Israel to fulfill religious and nationalist objectives. If peace and security are the utmost objectives, Israelis should move to Canada. (Ithe religious, nationalistic, value driven and interest driven objective of Israel is peace. The large majority of good Isrealis want peace.)