Newsweek has a must-read today on the cooperation between the U.S. and Israel on halting Iran’s nuclear program. The detail getting the most attention is the Obama administration’s decision to keep crucial intelligence from Israel regarding the locations of nuclear scientists. But the lack of intelligence-sharing goes both ways – Israel is also staying mum about when it will strike Iran, if it decides to take that course.
The reason for the silence seems to be a breakdown of trust between the Israeli government and the Obama administration. While the U.S. has the capability to attack the program after it goes fully underground, Israel’s window of time for carrying out a successful attack is much shorter. And the Israelis have reason to doubt Obama would take military action if he wins reelection, Newsweek reports:
One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb,” says the former Israeli official. This source says that Israel has asked Obama for assurances that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Obama’s refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel’s posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice.
Could there be a clearer example of “leading from behind” than this? A nuclear Iran is perhaps the biggest threat the world currently faces, and yet Obama can’t provide reassurances he’ll take military action if necessary – knowing this will lay the brunt of the responsibility on Israel.
Apparently, all options are NOT on the table.
In a must-read piece at the Daily Beast, we learn that Obama is trying to calibrate support for Israel with his own re-election campaign:
Obama’s advisers most concerned about the economy, for instance, have been at odds with allies in Congress most focused on preventing Iran from going nuclear. (It would take much less than an oil crisis to restoke panic about Greece and other feeble European economies.) Israel’s national interests are not always in line with Washington’s. And a messy war—or perceived weakness on Iran—could tip the election for the Republicans in November. . . .
From the get-go, Obama had a frosty relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. “There’s no question that tension grew between the two, because we felt like ... they had a different estimation [of the timeline for Iran to get nuclear-weapons capability],” says the Pentagon source, “and we felt like some of their [kinetic] activities undermined what we were trying to do. Obama’s view was, why would you remove the opportunity for a diplomatic solution for something that was so incrementally significant [as killing a scientist]?”
The real zinger in the piece comes close to the end:
The key question now is how much time is left to achieve a negotiated solution. Israeli officials say that the United States thinks it can afford to wait until Iran is on the very verge of weaponizing, because U.S. forces have the capacity to carry out multiple bombing sorties and cripple the Iranian program at that point. Israel, however, would not be able to carry out such a sustained attack and would need to hit much sooner to be effective—before Iran could shelter much of its program deep underground. One former Israeli official tells Newsweek he heard this explanation directly from Defense Minister Ehud Barak. “If Israel will miss its last opportunity [to attack], then we will have to lean only on the United States, and if the United States decides not to attack, then we will face an Iran with a bomb,” says the former Israeli official. This source says that Israel has asked Obama for assurances that if sanctions fail, he will use force against Iran. Obama’s refusal to provide that assurance has helped shape Israel’s posture: a refusal to promise restraint, or even to give the United States advance notice.
Talk about a buried lede. This is conclusive evidence, as if more were needed, that contrary to the wishful thinking of Obama’s supporters, the Israelis cannot rely — indeed they’ve been told not to rely — on Obama to take military action if needed to stop Iran. In other words, “all options on the table” is meaningless. Israel must act accordingly. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but Israel will need to act before the election. The only thing Obama really cares about these days is getting another four years, and his reaction to an Israeli strike pre-election will undoubtedly be more sympathetic than after he has won four more years.
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.info
www.converttojudaismonline.blogspot.com/
www.rabbijonathanginsburg.com
No comments:
Post a Comment