Los Angeles Times

McManus: Israel's brinkmanship, America's peril

Last week, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, confirmed a no-longer-surprising fact: the Pentagon has sent the White House a menu of options for going to war with Iran.

But that doesn't mean the military thinks bombing Iran would be a good idea. "It's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," Schwartz's boss, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CNN last month, adding that his advice applied to Israel as well as the United States. "A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn't achieve their objectives," Dempsey said.

It's hard to find a high-rankingU.S. militaryofficer who thinks war with Iran is a good idea. They point out that it is unclear that bombing Iran would succeed in stopping the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear technology, and that an attack would almost surely provoke Iranian retaliation and touch off a longer, wider war.

But that hasn't stopped President Obama from rattling the saber.

"When the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say," he told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic last week. "As president of the United States, I don't bluff."

Part of the reason Obama sounds more hawkish than his generals is that he hopes the threat of military action can help bring Iran around. But he's also trying to navigate a delicate situation with a leader who's ostensibly one of his closest allies, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, have said that they don't believe economic sanctions and negotiations are working fast enough to persuade Iran to curtail its nuclear program. Barak has warned that Iran's nuclear facilities will soon be so deep underground that they will be in a "zone of immunity," safe from military attack — or at least safe from the scale of attack that Israel could muster.

Once that happens, Israel would have to depend on the United States for protection, and that's not a position the Israelis want to be in. So Netanyahu and Barak have publicly suggested that it may soon be time for Israel to strike, despite the dangers that an attack would bring.

Are the Israelis serious? They say they are, and the Obama administration is taking them at their word. Over the past two months, a parade of U.S. defense officials has visited Israel. This week, Netanyahu is visiting Washington — hoping, according to Israeli media reports, to win a promise from Obama that the United States will prevent Iran from even attaining the capability to build nuclear weapons. Until now, the United States has said it will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but Israel wants the red line moved to the less easily defined point of "capability."

For all Netanyahu's bluster, Israeli officials still say war with Iran is something they'd like to avoid. An Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly lead not only to direct retaliation from Tehran, but also a ground war with Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian militia that rules southern Lebanon. A poll of Israelis released last week found that only 19% favor attacking Iran without U.S. support, and only 42% favor an attack even with U.S. support.

Even Netanyahu has said that the outcome he'd prefer is an Iranian retreat in the face of economic sanctions, with no military action by anyone.

But is that possible?

The United States and its European allies have been working on proposals for the next round of nuclear talks with Iran, which are planned to begin next month. The aim, Obama said in his interview with the Atlantic, is to induce Iran's leaders "to make a strategic calculation" to delay "whatever potential breakout capacity they may have."

That probably means some kind of deal under which Iran would agree to limit its enrichment of uranium to levels well below what's needed for nuclear weapons and submit to international inspections that would reassure Israel and other countries that it is not pursuing secret military projects.

The idea, said Dennis Ross, a former Obama advisor, would be to "stop the clock" and freeze Iran's nuclear technology at a level that doesn't threaten anyone else. But that would likely require the United States and its allies to soften their previous demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment as a first step.

Obama noted that Iranian leaders have frequently insisted they aren't seeking nuclear weapons. "So it doesn't require them to knuckle under to us," he said. But it would require them to allow more intrusive inspections than they have accepted in the past.

The Obama administration contends that a deal like that is more possible than ever before, because economic sanctions against Iran have finally begun to bite. But to obtain an agreement with Iran, the United States needs Israel to stay its hand.

The term "brinkmanship" was coined during the Cold War to describe threats of military action that, if implemented, would lead to disaster for both sides. It's ironic that in this case, the brinkmanship is coming from America's ally, Netanyahu, and it carries the potential of calamity not only for Iran and Israel, but for the United States as well.


Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Supreme Court gets it right on Jerusalem passport case

    Supreme Court gets it right on Jerusalem passport case

    The Supreme Court on Monday handed President Obama — and his successors — a significant and deserved victory when it ruled that recognizing a foreign government is the "exclusive" province of the executive branch. By a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down a provision in a law passed by Congress in...

  • Divided on Jerusalem

    Divided on Jerusalem

    On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration in a case involving a Jerusalem-born boy and his parents who wanted to take advantage of a 2002 law that allows Israel to be listed as the country of birth on the passport of a child born in Jerusalem. In 2011, when the high...

  • They're Palestinians, not 'Israeli Arabs'

    They're Palestinians, not 'Israeli Arabs'

    Can you imagine reading an editorial in a respected newspaper today discussing the rights of "Negroes" or "Chinamen"? Probably not. And yet, like other newspapers in this country, The Times continues to use the generic term "Arabs" or "Israeli Arabs" to refer to the Palestinians who live inside...

  • Netanyahu's remarks on Israel's Arab citizens part of a disturbing conversation

    Netanyahu's remarks on Israel's Arab citizens part of a disturbing conversation

    Under pressure from around the world, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized Monday for his last-minute campaign diatribe in which he declared ominously that the Arab citizens of Israel were being bused to the polls “en masse” and were “distorting” the election by simply exercising...

  • Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress comes at right time, right place

    Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress comes at right time, right place

    Imagine for a moment that your neighbor down the street was engaged in some basement science that could level your house and even kill you, if he so desired. Your best friend, who happens to live some distance away, out of harm's reach, can end the threat to your life and property but is now trying...

  • Putting Israel's name back on the map

    Putting Israel's name back on the map

    Mapping the world is not as easy as it seems. Border disputes make it difficult to draw national boundaries that everyone can agree on. Countries come and go over time and maps must be redrawn, even reconceived. When Crimea is annexed by Russia or the West Bank is occupied by Israel, when Japan...

  • The Palestinians' decision to join the ICC deserves support

    The Palestinians' decision to join the ICC deserves support

    The Israel exception to Western governments' human rights principles has been starkly on display in the reaction to the Palestinian Authority's decision to join the International Criminal Court. In Washington, Ottawa, Paris and London, as well as Tel Aviv, the response has ranged from discouraging...

  • The Israel boycott that backfired

    The Israel boycott that backfired

    For about a year, the American Studies Assn. has been offering a very public object lesson in how to destroy a scholarly organization. Ostensibly devoted to the study of all things American, the 5,000-member academic cohort has ventured outside its natural borders and into the crossfire of Israeli-Palestinian...