Israel
Between Rhetoric
And Reality Over Iran
By Abid Mustafa
28 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
The
recent American overtures to induct Iran in any political settlement
over Iraq have immensely troubled the Israel. So perturbed has been
the government in Tel Aviv that she has mounted a concerted campaign
in America to keep alive the notion that Iran poses a grave danger to
the US and must be thwarted at any cost. On 12/11/2006 The Jerusalem
Post reported that an Israeli Self-Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson
told the newspaper that "Only a military strike by the U.S. and
its allies will stop Iran obtaining nuclear weapons." While Israeli
Defence Minister Ephraim Sneth was more blunt about attacking Iran.
He said, "I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action
against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions. I consider
it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort."
The Israeli Prime Minister on his visit to Washington earlier this month
said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show. "I know that
America will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because this
is a danger to the whole Western world."
American think tanks also
joined in the foray against Iran. In an opinion editorial piece in the
Los Angeles Times, Joshua Muarvchik, resident scholar at the neoconservative
American Enterprise Institute said, "We must bomb Iran. The path
of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere. Our options therefore are
narrowed to two: we can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or
we can use force to prevent it. John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org,
a military issues think-tank, said. "They are going to bomb WMD
facilities next summer. It would be a limited military action to destroy
their WMD capabilities."
Clearly uncertainty has permeated
the corridors of power in Washington regarding Iran. On the one hand
the Bush administration is prepared to entertain the idea that force
against Iran cannot be ruled out. While at the same time the Bush administration
is warming to the idea of reaching out to Iran to help US extricate
itself from the quagmire in Iraq. The muddled signals stem from the
ongoing conflict between the realists who are in ascendancy and the
neoconservative who are in bitter retreat. The neoconservatives believe
that America's strategic interests in the Middle East are intertwined
with Israel's security. Therefore any of Israel's neighbours that pose
a danger to Israel's security must be neutralised. This not only involves
disarming the so called menacing country, but also dividing the country
along ethnic and sectarian lines-a sort of Lebanonisation (term first
used by Barnard Lewis the chief patron of the neocon movement) - where
new countries curved out from the bloodshed perpetrated by the US Army
pledge their allegiance to serve the American Empire. From Israel's
perspective, the Muslim populace surrounding her borders must be kept
busy in perpetual conflicts manufactured by exploiting ethnic and sectarian
tensions, and thereby creating new countries that are weak and incapable
of threatening Israel's security- this is commonly known as the Kivunim
plan.
The desire to Lebanonise
the Middle East came to the fore in US foreign policy with the emergence
of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration. Their rise to power
neatly fitted with Israeli aspirations and hence their respective interests
converged. With the debacle in Iraq, the realists have regained the
upperhand and are exerting their influence over all foreign policy matters-included
in this revision is Iraq, Palestine and Iran. What this means for Israel's
supporters inside the Bush administration is that time is running out
for neconservatives likes of Bolton and Abrams and they will soon be
replaced with realists. A more calibrated approach that is inclusive
of the concerns expressed by America's allies will be adopted.
Thus the belligerent statements
emanating from US and Israeli officials regarding Iran should not be
interpreted as the manifestations of a hostile US policy towards Iran.
Rather, it should be read as the vestige of a discredited neoconservative
theory that is in its last throes. This was aptly summed up by US Foreign
Secretary Rice who mentioned three reasons why the United States is
currently unable to carry out a military operation against Iran: the
wish to solve the crisis through peaceful means; concern that a military
strike will be ineffective - that it would fail to completely destroy
Iran's nuclear capabilities; and the lack of precise intelligence on
the targets' locations.
Without US assistance, it
is very unlikely that Israel would carry out such strikes. Leaving the
military capability aside, there is another major factor that makes
its difficult for Israel to contemplate military action against Iran.
The Iraq war, the re-occupation of Palestinian territories and Hizbollah's
stiff resistance has not made Israel any safer. On the contrary,
these events supported and engineered by the neoconservatives have not
only shattered the myth of Israel's invincibility, but also exposed
her population to perpetual insecurity.
Abid Mustafa is a political commentator who specialises
in Muslim affairs
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights