Netanyahu refuses explicit Iran
threat By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - The perception that Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is threatening
to attack Iran's nuclear facilities unless
sanctions and diplomacy succeed in shutting them
down has been the driving force in the Iran
crisis. But although Netanyahu and Defense
Minister Ehud Barak have made some tough
statements, especially over the past several
months, there is still one gaping hole in the
record of their rhetoric on Iran: neither
Netanyahu nor Barak has ever made an explicit
public statement threatening to attack Iran.
And in recent months, both have refused to
make anything like such a threat when invited to
do so by interviewers.
The absence of any
such explicit threat of force does not in itself
rule out the possibility
that Netanyahu is prepared to attack Iran under
some circumstances. A review of the history of
Israeli declaratory policy toward Iran, however,
reveals that the government of Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert twice actually did issue explicit threats
to attack Iran if it did not end its nuclear
programme.
In February 2006, then Defense
Minister Shaul Mofaz declared that, if diplomacy
failed to "delay or curb" the Iranian nuclear
program, Israel couldn't "sit idly by" while Iran
was on the threshold of achieving nuclear
capabilities.
That language suggested a
serious threat, because it is well known that the
People's Republic of China warned the US Army
early in the Korean War that it could not "sit
idly by" if the US forces crossed the 38th
parallel, before making good on its threat by
sending massive ground forces to fight them in
North Korea.
On June 8, 2008, Mofaz, then
deputy prime minister in the Olmert government,
was even more explicit, declaring, "If Iran
continues with its programme for developing
nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In
contrast to those straightforward conditional
threats to use military force against Iran,
Netanyahu and Barak have either refused to address
the issue in speeches and interviews or have
limited themselves to much broader statements
about "all options" being "on the table" and
Israel's "right to self-defense".
When
asked by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on November 20
whether Israel was going to attack Iran, Barak
would not answer, saying it was not a "subject for
public discussion". Instead Barak talked about the
vague notion of an Iranian "zone of immunity", in
which a sufficient proportion of Iran's nuclear
capabilities would be in sites protected from a
potential Israeli attack so that such an attack
would be futile.
In Ottawa before his
visit to Washington in March, Netanyahu said only,
"[L]ike any sovereign country, we reserve the
right to defend ourselves against a country that
calls and works for our destruction."
In
his speech to the influential lobby group
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
March 5, Netanyahu sought to refute the argument
that "stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more
dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb" and
likened it to arguments made by the United States
against bombing Auschwitz in 1944.
But
that appeared to be an argument against the Barack
Obama administration's policy of refusing to
attack Iran in the absence of evidence of moves to
enrich uranium at weapons grade. Netanyahu refused
to say under what circumstances his government
would resort to force against Iran.
"I
read about what Israel has supposedly decided to
do or what Israel might do," he said. "Well, I'm
not going to talk to about what Israel will do or
will not do. I never talk about that."
In
an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News
March 7, Netanyahu repeated that generic idea: "If
it's necessary we'll act in our own defense." But
when asked if Israel could act alone, he said,
"You know I never talk about that."
The
closest Netanyahu has come to a direct threat of
war was on March 10, when he said he hoped "there
won't be a war at all, and that the pressure on
Iran will succeed," but added that the "eleventh
hour" is approaching for Iran to "halt its nuclear
programme or suffer the consequences".
Netanyahu and Barak apparently went much
further in off-the-record meetings with a small
number of Israeli reporters. The message, wrote
Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz in a March 26 report, was,
"If the international community doesn't stop Iran
by summer, Israel will soon strike."
But
Shavit and other reporters were forbidden from
quoting from those briefings or identifying the
officials giving them.
The public
reticence of Netanyahu and Barak may reflect the
fact that the two leaders are not in a position to
commit the Israeli government publicly to an
attack on Iran. Press reports have portrayed
Netanyahu and Barak as representing a distinct
minority on the issue in Israel's nine-member
"security cabinet".
Even Deputy Prime
Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who argued publicly last
month in an interview with Ha'aretz that the only
alternatives in regard to Iran are "bomb or
bombing", was said by his interviewer, Ari Shavit,
to express "deep concern" in private conversations
about Netanyahu being dragged by Barak into a
"wanton Iranian adventure".
In late
October 2011 it was leaked to the Israeli Hebrew
language newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth that Netanyahu
and Barak were seeking to convince the Israeli
cabinet to support an attack on Iran. Barak then
told Israel Radio that no decision had been made
and that it would not be taken by two people.
Raviv Drucker, political commentator for
Israel's Channel 10, noted that such press
speculation "works rather well for Netanyahu, as
he can be portrayed as keen to deal with Iran but
being held back' by others in the Israeli
establishment."
Netanyahu and Barak may
also be constrained by the consensus of the
Israeli national security establishment in
opposition to an attack on Iran under present
circumstances. IDF and Mossad officials have told
Netanyahu that Israeli intelligence agrees with
the US intelligence community that Iran has not
yet decided to take the critical steps that would
be required to have nuclear weapons.
Barak
even alluded to that fact himself in an interview
with Israel Radio March 22. He said Iran "wants to
achieve a military nuclear capability" but was
"not breaking out". One of the reasons, Barak
said, was its "fear of what will happen, if, God
forbid, the United States or maybe someone else
acts against them."
That statement implied
that Iran was already being deterred from
advancing to nuclear weapons a position at odds
with the Netanyahu government's posture.
Netanyahu's refusal to make a public
threat to attack Iran is also consistent with his
well-established reputation as an extremely "risk
averse" political figure.
"Netanyahu is
known for his caution," said David Makovsky of the
Washington Institute for Near Policy in an
interview with The Tablet in May.
The
unambiguous Mofaz threats of 2006 and 2008 did not
signal an actual readiness to strike at Iranian
nuclear facilities, because at that point, the
Israeli Air Force did not have the capability to
carry out an effective attack.
Retired US
Air Force Lt Col Rick Francona, who visited Israel
in November 2006 and met with Israeli Air Force
officials, concluded that they did not have the
capability to destroy Iranian nuclear sites. In an
interview with this writer in 2007, Francona said
the Israeli officers "recognized they have a
shortfall in aerial refueling".
But Olmert
and Mofaz may been emboldened to issue explicit
threats by the knowledge that Iran would not be
close to a breakout capability for a few more
years.
Gareth Porter, an
investigative historian and journalist
specializing in US national security policy,
received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for
journalism for 2011 for articles on the US war in
Afghanistan.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
