|
By Ira Sharkansky
 JERUSALEM—Something may be happening.
Or the signals may be nothing but threat, bluster, and invention.
One headline is that Vice President Biden said that Israel has the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself by attacking Iran. He implied that would not be the preference of the United States. Or maybe he implied that it would be the preference of the United States. He was either inarticulate or purposely vague.
Another headline is that Israel has sent submarines through the Suez Canal in the direction of the Red Sea and the naval base at Eilat. They may be equipped with cruise missiles and sent in the direction of the Persian Gulf.
Israel-Egyptian cooperation in the passage of Israeli warships through the Canal may be signaling that Egypt and other Arab states will support an Israeli attack on Iran.
A British paper reported that Saudi Arabia indicated to Israel that it will not prevent Israeli warplanes from overflying its territory on the way to Iran. According to the report, the Saudis insist that Israel not advertise their cooperation.
Both Saudi and Israeli authorities deny the report. That may be part of the agreement that it be kept quiet. Or it may mean that the British journal invented the story. Why? Perhaps to increase circulation or to warn the Iranians and make it difficult for the Israelis to do anything.
Another item is that Israeli officials are pressing Americans with their analysis that recent commotion in Iran makes it even less likely that dialogue will be helpful in ending the Iranian nuclear program. We also hear that a number of moderate Arab governments have indicated their frustration at American naivite, i.e., thinking that the Iranians can be charmed or persuaded to moderate their course.
Go to the top of right column
|
|
We have been here before. British papers (either mainline newspapers or from the Muslim community) have reported Israeli preparations that seem pointed to an early attack. A number of Arab governments (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states) view Iran as a domestic threat via its incitement of their own Shiites or other radicals, and view the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon as worse than anything Israel represents.
The downside of an Israeli attack has not changed. It will produce an Iranian response likely to cause significant damage and casualties, as well as widespread international condemnation (despite tacit approvals or encouragement of Israel). If the Iranian attack is limited to conventional warheads delivered by planes or missiles, the damage could be acceptable, perhaps with another round of Israeli attacks in retaliation. If the Iranian response includes poison gas, radioactive waste, or one of its first nuclear warheads, something bigger might happen.
The government collected our gas masks some time ago, and is not yet ready to distribute newer models with fresh antidotes. Perhaps that means no attack is imminent.
Would it be better to rely on Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and let the Iranians proceed with their nuclear development, assuming the United States, Europe, Russia, and China have not the will to impose sanctions severe enough to deter them?
Israel's interests are in the middle of the "yes-no" spectrum.
The threats of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provide all the moral justification necessary for a severe pre-emptive strike, including a willingness to absorb considerable damage and casualties in whatever response and escalation occurs. On the other hand, it would be nice to avoid damage, and hope that rationality prevails among the Iranians who make decisions. Threats, bluster, news leaks, and invented stories of Israeli-Saudi cooperation might have some deterrent effect on Iran. Life is not good for the average Iranian, and the recent commotion may not be the end of the protests. A continuation of sanctions, even at their current modest levels, may have some effect.
We will not know in advance.
|
|
