Townhall...
Waiting
out Obama
by Caroline Glick
Nov 09, 2011
Over
the past week, there has been an
avalanche of news reports in the Israeli and Western media about the
possibility of an imminent Israeli or American strike on Iran’s nuclear
installations. These reports were triggered by a report on Iran’s
nuclear
program set to be published by the UN’s International Atomic Energy
Agency
later this week.
According
to the media, the IAEA’s
report will deal a devastating blow to Iran’s persistent claims that
its
illegal nuclear program is “peaceful.” Specifically, the IAEA report is
expected to divulge information about Iran’s efforts to develop and
test
components that have no plausible use other than the production of
nuclear
weapons. These activities include experimentation with triggers used
only for
detonating nuclear weapons, and the development of missile warheads
capable of
carrying nuclear weapons. They also include the design of computer
simulation
programs to test nuclear weapons.
Most
nuclear experts claim that Iran
currently has sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to produce four
or five
nuclear weapons. They also claim that it will take Iran another three
years to
develop a fullblown nuclear arsenal. Finally, Israeli and Western
sources claim
that in light of Iran’s bid to develop hardened, underground nuclear
sites, its
nuclear installations will be immune to ballistic missile attacks or
aerial
bombing within a year.
Confronting
Iran’s rapidly developing
nuclear capabilities, Israeli hawks and doves are united in their view
that
Israel’s preferred option is for the US rather than the IDF to launch a
military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. This view is
reasonable because the US has the military capabilities to destroy
Iran’s
nuclear program completely and do so with minimal risk to America’s
international prestige and position.
Moreover,
if the US, rather than
Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel will be able to
devote all
of its own resources to fending off missile and ground assaults from
Iran’s
proxy regimes in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. Between them, Hamas,
Hezbollah and
Syrian President Bashar Assad have some 100,000 missiles aimed at
Israel. For
the past two years Hizbullah has been planning a ground offensive
against
northern Israel in conjunction with a missile offensive. Syria has
chemical
weapons.
If
as expected, Iran unleashes these
forces in response to a strike on its nuclear installations, the IDF
will have
its hands full.
As
for the option of an Israeli strike
on Iran, assuming a tactical nuclear strike is not under consideration,
Israel
probably lacks the ability to completely destroy Iran’s nuclear
facilities on
its own. Unlike the US, Israel would have to limit any operation in
Iran to
destroying the most dangerous Iranian nuclear facilities while leaving
others
untouched.
The
limited nature of an Israeli
strike could enable Iran to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. If so,
Israel
would likely need to launch another strike later on.
Unlike
the US, Israel would have no
international coalition to fight with. Jerusalem would face the
unpalatable
prospect of being condemned for its action by UN and other
international
bodies, including by states that would quietly support it.
Most
importantly, given the likelihood
that Iran’s proxies would launch a new round of aggression against
Israel in
response to a strike on its nuclear installations, Israel would be
beset by a
multi-front war at a time when much of its Air Force and perhaps other
strategic assets are out of the country.
Against
this backdrop, it makes sense
to assume that reports of current Israeli preparations for a strike
against
Iran are less indications of an imminent strike than an Israeli attempt
to send
messages to two target audiences. First, Israel is signaling Iran that
it has
the capacity to strike its nuclear installations. Second, Israel is
signaling
the Obama administration that it is time for Washington to get serious
about
preparing a military operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities,
lest
Israel be forced to act on its own.
There
are some indications that even
without Israeli maneuvering some Obama administration officials have
finally
awoken to the dangers. On Sunday The New York Times reported that the
administration’s assessment that it can contain a nuclear-armed Iran in
much
the same way the US contained the Soviet Union “took a hit,” after
Iran’s plan
to penetrate terror operatives into the US through the Mexican border
was
revealed. The thwarted Iranian plan to use terrorists brought in from
Mexico to
stage spectacular terror attacks against Israeli and Saudi targets in
Washington taught administration officials that Iran continues to view
terrorism as a strategic tool. They finally realized that it is
impossible to
rule out the possibility that Iran would use terror proxies to transfer
and
detonate nuclear bombs in third countries. And their inability to rule
out this
prospect placed their previous conviction that they can contain a
nuclear Iran in
serious question.
Unfortunately,
from statements to the
media last week by a senior US military source, it appears that the
administration’s belated recognition that Iran is more comparable to
Nazi
Germany than to Stalinist Russia does not mean that they are interested
in
actually doing anything to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Speaking
to reporters in Washington a
senior US military official said that the US continues to view the
prospect of
an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations as just as
problematic
as a nuclear armed Iran. As he put it, the US is “absolutely” concerned
about a
potential Israeli attack, and “increasingly vigilant” with regard to
activities
in both Israel and Iran that could indicate military intentions.
The
Obama administration’s stubborn
refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that a nuclear armed Iran
constitutes a
far greater danger to US interests than an Israeli military strike to
deny Iran
nuclear capabilities is in line with the administration’s consistent
refusal to
treat Israel as an ally. Its unserious handling of Iran is of a piece
with its
gentle policies towards Hamas and Hezbollah, its refusal to call Fatah
on its
bad faith, its blindness to the threat emanating from Islamist
movements in
Turkey and North Africa, and its consistent pressure on Israel to
appease its
enemies. The administration’s apparent antipathy for Israel has played
a
significant role in causing it to underestimate the threat that all
these
forces pose not only to Israel but to the US and to international
security in
general.
And
Israel is not the US’s only Middle
Eastern ally that has suffered from its strategic myopia. Iran’s pro-
American
Green Movement was betrayed by Obama’s decision to side with the regime
against
the Green Movement in 2009. Iraq’s pro-American political forces will
be harmed
if not destroyed in the aftermath of the administration’s planned
withdrawal of
US forces from Iraq.
Then
there are the Sunnis. Under
Obama, the US betrayed its most important Arab ally when it called for
then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to resign in response to the
anti-regime
demonstrations in Cairo. America is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood
takeover
of Tunisia, Libya and Egypt. It supports the Muslim
Brotherhood-dominated,
Turkish organized Syrian opposition to Assad’s regime. It upholds
Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist, anti-Semitic and
anti-Western
regime as the US’s greatest regional ally.
With
its dismal track record, it is
far from clear that Israel is well-served by pressuring the Obama
administration to take action against Iran. On Sunday, British military
commentator Con Coughlin noted in the Sunday Telegraph that in recent
years,
the “only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on slowing
Iran’s
nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a skillful
combination of
targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare.”
So
Israel’s low-key, tactical
operations against Iran have been effective while all of Obama’s
high-profile strategic
operations have empowered Israel’s enemies.
True,
Obama has not yet taken any
operational steps to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. But the dire
implications of his track records cannot be ignored.
At
least until the US presidential
elections next year, Israel’s best bet may be to simply step up its
covert
efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program.
The
goal of these efforts should be to
slow down Iran’s nuclear progress sufficiently to prevent it from
developing a
nuclear arsenal or moving its nuclear project to hardened locations
until after
the US presidential elections.
In
the meantime, Israel should
continue to develop its independent capacity to attack Iran. It should
also
take military action to weaken Iran’s terror proxies in order to limit
their
capacity to wage war against Israel in the aftermath of an eventual,
post-presidential election Israeli or US strike against Iran’s nuclear
facilities.
Obviously,
it would be a mistake to
assume that Obama will lose his reelection bid. But even if he wins, as
a lame
duck, second term president, he will have less power to harm Israel
than he
will as a first term president poised for reelection.
Read
this and other columns at
Townhall
|