Page 1 of
2 Bargaining intensifies over Iran
strike By Victor Kotsev
So heated and so public has become the
debate over whether Israel would and should attack
Iran in the fall that the editor-in-chief of the
Israeli daily Ha'aretz remarked sarcastically in
an editorial: "[Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin
Netanyahu and [Defense Minister] Ehud Barak
deserve a medal for their contribution to
strengthening Israeli democracy. For the first
time a broad and noisy public debate is taking
place over whether to go to war, with the
encouragement and participation of the prime
minister and the defense minister."
The
donnybrook among both Israelis and Americans is
quickly turning into a free-for-all; the dominant
narrative that Jerusalem is feverishly pushing for
a strike while Washington is feverishly
pushing back, while not
necessarily wrong, is proving simplistic.
In both countries there are different
camps and sub-camps divided over the issue, which
are simultaneously grappling and bargaining with
each other, while trying to jointly bargain and
grapple with the Iranians. The Iranian camp is
equally diverse and divided, and other American
allies, such as Saudi Arabia, are bringing their
own narrow interests into the dispute. The result:
a genuine mess. It is generally believed
that Barak and Netanyahu are the two chief hawks
in the Western camp, while United States President
Barack Obama is the top dove. Some heavy blows
were exchanged among the three in the last weeks.
Obama's recent pressure on Barak and Netanyahu,
epitomized by a series of visits by top US
officials in Jerusalem, resulted in an explosion
of rhetoric and positioning.
To name a few
key incidents: the hawks retaliated by leaking
information on a brand new American National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which reportedly
reverses previous findings, arguing that Iran has
accomplished significant progress toward building
a nuclear bomb. To quote the Israeli defense
minister, "As far as we know it brings the
American assessment much closer to ours."
If confirmed, this information about the
2012 NIE would constitute a serious coup for the
war camp. Needless to say, the entire American
decision-making process is far more complex than
just Obama's, and the weight of established
bureaucratic procedure is palpable even in the
president's office.
Thus, the 2007 NIE,
which stipulated that Iran had "halted" its
military nuclear program in 2003, arguably tied
the hands of former US president George W Bush
(whether the latter, previously known as a hawk,
was happy to have his hands tied at that point, is
the subject of another debate). Similarly - though
to the opposite effect - the 2012 NIE could help
force Obama's hand to start a war down the road.
At the very least, the leak would make it
harder for Obama to keep negotiating with Iran.
Ironically, in the immediate American response to
the reports we can find some of the very few
existing signs that the talks are still alive:
White House Spokesman Jay Carney told Ha'aretz on
August 9 that the administration would not comment
on the information and remains focused on the
negotiations.
Still, the White House took
only a few days to return the blow, in the face of
the top American soldier, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff of the US armed forces General
Martin Dempsey. Dempsey's comments that Israel
could "delay but not destroy Iran's nuclear
capabilities" were widely perceived as a "punch"
in the faces of Barak and Netanyahu. [1]
Shortly afterwards, Netanyahu introduced
the new Israeli home front defense minister,
former Shin Bet (counter-intelligence) chief Avi
Dichter, who resigned from his opposition seat in
the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in order to join
the government.
Importantly, Dichter also
joined the so-called security cabinet - the body
of eight, now nine, who make important security
decisions such as the decision to attack or not to
attack Iran. Rumor has it that the security
cabinet was split in the middle over the Iranian
nuclear program, and that Dichter is likely to
support Netanyahu and Barak. [2]
Not only
that message to Obama; a series of former Israeli
officials and military analysts stepped forward
and offered publicly the information that if,
essentially, Obama commits to attacking Iran by
June 2013 (in the absence of a peaceful resolution
to the issue), Israel would agree to hold off from
striking on its own in the run-up to the US
presidential election in November (which also
roughly coincides with the time when bad winter
weather sets over Iran, greatly hampering any
strike).
Some Americans also made
proposals in a similar vein, and one Israeli
report even claimed that Obama had accepted the
deal. [3] Much of the speculation currently
centers on whether there will be a meeting between
the Israeli and American leaders around the time
of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in
late September.
In many ways, this is a
stereotypical Middle Eastern bazaar response when
met with the intractable wishes of a powerful (or
wealthy) stranger: everything has a price, and the
stronger the stranger's desire, the higher the
price becomes (some military gear and cash gifts
are also reportedly under discussion).
Incidentally, Middle Eastern bargaining is
also usually accompanied by flowery story-telling,
and both camps have their own apocalyptic
scenarios and counter-arguments. To see two
versions of this debate, click here
(registration required) and here
Still, Obama might personally profit from
such a deal. It would allow him to polish his
security credentials - which already received a
boost with the killing of Osama bin Laden last
year - in the run-up to the vote while
simultaneously avoiding a war and kicking the
Iranian problem further down the road.
He
has often been accused by critics of handling
foreign policy issues in the latter way, but if he
can persuade both domestic hawks and doves that he
is doing their bidding, and that right before the
vote, it might work for him spectacularly for
once. (If Iran collapses economically meanwhile
and surrenders its nuclear program peacefully, he
would have hit the jackpot.)
The exchange
continues. Amid a flurry of leaks and reports in
the Israeli press, which some observers speculate
were aimed at preparing the Israeli public
psychologically for war, Israeli President Shimon
Peres (recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and
incidentally one of the architects of Israel's own
nuclear program) came to Obama's aid on Thursday.
"Now, it's clear to us that we can't do it
alone," Peres said in an interview with the
Israeli TV Channel 2. "We can delay [ran's nuclear
program]. It's clear to us we have to proceed
together with America. There are questions about
coordination and timing, but as serious as the
danger is, this time at least we are not alone."
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
