Last spring in my Palestinian-Israeli conflict class, we
periodically dealt with current events. Our class discussions reflected much of
what the students followed in the mainstream media, and during those months it
seemed as though Israel was preparing to attack Iran at any moment. In fact, I commented that it almost seemed as
if there was a concerted effort to notify Iran of the eventual attack. However, by the end of the semester, the tension
eased and a full-out Israeli-Iranian war was put on the back burner, while the US
continued to work through diplomatic means to force the Iranians to rethink
their race towards becoming a nuclear-armed state.
Well as the summer is now coming to a close, Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, have
succeeded in putting Iran back on the agenda. However, now the level of speech
concerning an Israeli strike has surpassed that of last spring and has left all
the actors in the region on edge. Literally for the past two weeks, the Israeli
media has been discussing the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s
nuclear program on a daily basis, presenting multiple scenarios and
timelines. What has emerged is worrying,
since it is tangled up with an outright duel between Netanyahu and Barak on one
side and President Barack Obama on the other.
The scenario is simple: Israel will unilaterally strike Iran
before the US elections, which will in essence force Obama to support the
Israeli move and Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even though the Obama
administration is convinced that a military strike is premature. Of course, with Mitt Romney courting Israel
at all costs, Obama will need to appear defiant in his support for Israel. Clearly,
this tactic does not need to lead to an actual Israeli strike, since even the
threat of one before the elections is enough for Netanyahu to reap fruits, such
as Obama committing to an American airstrike after the elections (which some
pundits have been discussing). Let us remember that Netanyahu is no stranger to
meddling in US politics. Back in 1998, President
Clinton pressured Netanyahu (during his first term) to negotiate with the Palestinians.
Upon arriving to meet with Clinton and Yasser Arafat, Netanyahu chose to meet first
with a Clinton adversary, US Evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, along with a
thousand supporters, to send a strong message to Clinton that he also could play
the pressure game.
The Obama administration thus far has not caved to this
pressure, and has even warned Israel
that the time is not right. US Defense Minister Panetta has stated that the use
of force should be a last resort, and General Martin Dempsey, US Chairman of
the Joint Chief of Staffs, maintains that an Israeli strike will only “delay but
not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.” On Israel’s Channel Two, Michael Oren, the
Israeli ambassador to the US and a staunch supporter of Netanyahu, rebuffed the
American “advice” and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense. He argued that
even a unilateral strike that would only “delay” the Iranian nuclear program
might be sufficient for the time being.
For now, the Netanyahu-Barak coalition is shunning the chorus
of opposition in Israel to a unilateral Israeli strike, which has been voiced among
members of the military establishment and most recently by Israeli President
Shimon Peres. This voice of reason was
not welcomed among the Netanyahu administration, which reminded Peres that the Israeli
presidency is merely ceremonial and is supposed to remain above (and out of)
politics.
While I have not focused on the regional implications of a
unilateral Israeli strike, it is clear that, with Syria in disarray and the Middle East fresh from the downfall of dictatorships,
many scenarios can play out. However, unlike
past Israeli wars, this one could actually place the majority of the Israeli
population under a major assault. It is therefore safe to say that Netanyahu is
playing with fire.
For now, we will need to wait to see how Netanyahu plays his
cards. With Israel appointing Avi Dichter last week as Home Front Defense Minister,
it appears that they will need some time to prepare their citizens for war,
leaving the possibility for a strike within the next the few weeks highly
unlikely. Also, it would make sense that the next event to wait for is an Obama-Netanyahu meeting in mid-September
at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. The question remains whether
such a meeting will defuse the tension between the two leaders. When Netanyahu
arrives in the US, it will be interesting to see if he will first meet with
Romney in order to embarrass Obama, as in the above mentioned 1998 case. What is certain is that Netanyahu’s tactics
prove once again how detrimental he can be to Israel’s world standing. Clearly,
more than any other leader in Israeli history, Netanyahu has completely
isolated Israel, and it seems that he will continue to choose this option.
