One unintended consequence of the recent US election, and the firing of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of defense may be this story out of Israel today (from the Associated Press):
Israel Hints at Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program
The deputy defense minister suggested in comments published Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program — the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.
“I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, a former general, told The Jerusalem Post. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort.” […]
Sneh’s tough talk is the boldest to date by a high-ranking Israeli official. Olmert and other Israeli leaders frequently discuss the Iranian threat in grave terms, but stop short of threatening military action.
This is a not so subtle hint to the Bush administration (and to the new Democratic leadership in Congress) that if the US cools to the idea of an attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Israel might just take matters into their own hands. I doubt we would have seen these remarks from any Israeli government official if Republicans had retained control over Congress, or if Donald Rumsfeld had remained as the US Defense Secretary.
As to how credible this threat is …?
(cont.)
For now I don’t take it seriously. I just don’t see Israel taking action independent of the United States in a matter of such importance to US interests in the region. No, the purpose of these comments was a shot across our bow by the Israelis, letting us know that they will not tolerate any backtracking on our current policy toward Iran. Personally, I think this is a mistake on their part. Nevertheless, it appears to be the Israeli government’s intent to push the issue of Iran with President Bush later this week:
Israel considers Iran its most formidable enemy. Fears that Tehran will develop a nuclear arsenal, despite its denials, have been exacerbated by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s calls for Israel’s destruction.
“The prime minister is going to be focusing on the Iranian issue _ how to get the world on path with what are essentially very similar views between the United States and Israel,” said Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin.
But that common ground might shift, now that Bush’s Republican Party has lost control of Congress, some political analysts say.
“Israeli interests, at this point, rest on future decisive statesmanship and decisive action in relation to the nuclear threat of Iran,” said Menahem Blondheim of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The United States is not going to accomplish anything in Iraq, or with regard to Iran’s nuclear program unless and until it sits down with Iran at the negotiating table. In 2003 we could have obtained virtually anything we wanted from Iran’s leaders in exchange for a pledge to abandon our policy of regime change in Iran. Now the tables are turned. The quagmire that our occupation of Iraq has become has strengthened Iran’s position in the region and weakened our own. Nonetheless, Iran is eager to begin negotiations with the US over Iraq, and more than likely willing to discuss its nuclear program as well.
Iran has no great interest in seeing Iraq collapse into chaos and civil war whether we leave or stay. The rise of an independent Kurdish state in Northern Iraq still gives it the willies, among other concerns. Iran also wants to see a stable Iraq, preferably one headed up by a Shi’a dominated government which is friendly toward Iran, if not an actual ally. A continuing civil war between Iraq’s various ethnic and sectarian groups, which might draw in financial and other support for the Sunni insurgency from the predominately Sunni states in the region (Saudi Arabia, Jordan and possibly Egypt), is not in Iran’s long term interests. The Iranian government would prefer to come to some sort of arrangement that secures its borders with Iraq and cements Iran as the dominant regional power. That can only occur through a change in US policy.
Obviously, any such a negotiated settlement between Iran and the United States would be anathema to Israel. Frankly, Israel doesn’t care if the Iraq descends into anarchy just so long as Iran’s goals in the region are stymied. The question then becomes this: Should the United States government accept that whatever policy best serves Israel’s interests with regards to Iran also best serves our interests? The answer to that question may determine whether America can salvage anything from its disaster in Iraq, or whether it is doomed to repeat its mistake in Iraq by forcing a second military confrontation with another despotic, oil rich nation in the Middle East (i.e., Iran).
Personally, I believe the time has come for the United States to engage Iran directly in diplomatic negotiations regarding Iraq, Iran’s nuclear program, Lebanon and Palestine. I doubt, however, if that is the approach currently favored by President Bush. Let’s hope that whomever is appointed to replace Donald Rumsfeld can change that dynamic at the White House.
The victory of the Democrats by taking both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the firing of Rumsfeld have shifted the balance between the pragmatists and the neo-conservatives in the administration of President George W Bush. Rumsfeld was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney in opposing every effort to open up diplomatic channels to Tehran.
According to Lawrence Wilkerson, former secretary of state Colin Powell’s chief of staff, it was Cheney and Rumsfeld who made sure that Washington dismissed Iran’s May 2003 offer to open up its nuclear program, rein in Hezbollah and cooperate against al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld was also a driving force behind using the Mujahideen-e Khalq, an Iranian terrorist organization opposed to the ruling clerics, to weaken Tehran.
Gates, however, belongs to a different school of Republican foreign-policy thinking. Gates’ entrance and the Republican leadership’s exit have created a precious opportunity to change the course on Iraq – and on Iran. For years, the Bush administration has pursued a maximalist policy based on rejecting any links between the Iranian nuclear program and the many other areas where the US and Iran clash. By refusing any linkages, the Bush White House has aimed to gain maximum concessions from Iran in all areas without ever having to reciprocate or offer any concessions in return.
