Iran 267

Ha'aretz: Obama quashed Israel military option against Iran
Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=54500&l=e&size=1&hd=0

May 22, 2009

Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was
issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.

All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice
president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending
strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran.
Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do
with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA
director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so
many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."

Perhaps Israel at one point had just a small window of opportunity to
exercise the military option, or, in other words, the possibility of
attacking sites in Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This
is assuming, of course, that Israel indeed has the military capability for
carrying out such a mission - an assumption that raises many questions.
This is a mission that requires gathering pinpoint intelligence, to
identify the precise targets without harming thousands of innocent
civilians.

Simply put, one of the targets of such a strike is the uranium enrichment
facility in Isfahan, which lies in the heart of a congested civilian
population. A realistic military option is also contingent on fighter jets
finding undetected routes, as well as carrying a sufficient payload of
bombs and missiles to inflict heavy damage on the targets.

Let us assume that Israel does, indeed, have a reasonable military
capability which would enable it to strike at the targets, inflict heavy
damage and set Iran's nuclear program back a few years. The opportunity to
realize this capability arguably presented itself to Israel a few years
ago. Iran at the time was subject to an intense international offensive.
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly exposed its
lies and levied sanctions against the Tehran regime.

Threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel from the map
and his insistence on denying the Holocaust aroused great sympathy for
Israel. This sympathy was buttressed by the Olmert government's willingness
to hold peace talks with Syria and seek an agreement with the Palestinians.
Above all, this friendly international atmosphere was backed by an
accommodating Republican administration and a president who was ready to
support (or to turn a blind eye to) any Israeli operation. In addition,
Iran's ability to respond to an attack with missiles was limited.

But all this is now in the past. The sanctions are stuck. Ahmadinejad has,
for the time being, softened his bellicose rhetoric. The production of
Iranian missiles has doubled.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not ready to recognize the right of
the Palestinians to a state of their own, nor does he have any intention of
holding serious negotiations with Syria, regarding withdrawal from the
Golan Heights. This position reduces international support for Israel. Yet,
most importantly, there is a new president in Washington, one who has
outlined a new policy vis-a-vis Iran. He has announced the start of
negotiations with Iran, and even though he mentioned that the talks will
have to be concluded by the end of this year, he did not set a clear
deadline. All these factors, including the explicit statements made by
administration officials, put Israel in its place.

The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not
launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in
harm's way, the clear interests of the United States. This stance has
underpinned every fateful decision taken by Israel relating to matters of
war and peace. Israel embarked on the Six-Day War only after it was
convinced that the U.S. would not oppose. In the hours leading up to the
Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for
fear that Washington would blame it for starting the war. Israel invaded
Lebanon in 1982 only after Defense Minister Ariel Sharon came under the
impression that the U.S. would view the move with understanding. During the
first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. did not permit Israel to respond to Iraqi
scud missiles, and Israel obliged.

If this tenet remains the cornerstone of defense policy, then Israel once
again will not act against the explicit wishes of the U.S. Thus, when
Israeli leaders say that "all options are open," this is nothing but a
dog's bark being louder than his bite. Or, if you will, a mouse that roars.
If the U.S. does not alter its policy, then Israel no longer has the
military option at its disposal - if it ever had such an option at all.