Netanyahu: Iran has to be stopped. Either by U.S. or Israel
During an interview with The Atlantic, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Either, he said, the international community puts tighter sanctions on Tehran, or military action will have to take place. If this latter is the only option left, Israel hopes the U.S. will do it but, if not, the Jewish nation-state will do it herself.
The Atlantic summarizes Netanyahu’s words of warning as follows: “Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran or I Will.”
Although this summary isn’t completely wrong, it’s not completely accurate either. Netanyahu clearly emphasized a diplomatic solution: he believes there is still time to force Iran to give up its nuclear project if the international community finally unites and promises to ruin the country’s economy if necessary.
Having said that, Netanyahu’s views are clear. He believes a nuclear Iran will pose an existential threat to Israel. Additionally, he fears that one of Iran’s main goals may be to scare Israelis into migrating. This is a very real danger: higher educated Israelis are expected to leave in droves if Iran gets its hands on weapons of mass destruction. This would rather obviously weaken Israel sigifnificantly.
An Israel attack against Iran is truly a scenario from hell. It could very well cause a regional war, in which the U.S. may be forced to take sides (with Israel obviously). Arab countries aren’t happy with Iran’s growing influence in the region, but they can’t possibly side with Israel when the latter attacks a ‘fellow Muslim’ country nonetheless. They’ll side with Iran, not because they want to but because their peoples will dispose of them if they don’t. The U.S. will rightly choose Israel’s side, meaning that it will be at odds with valuable yet nominal Middle Eastern allies (like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.).
It is, again, a nightmare scenario. If the U.S. would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Arab word will condemn it but it will not do anything about it. If, however, Israel goes in and carries out airstrikes against a Muslim country, the Middle East may be subjected to an extremely aggressive and hateful regional war. No, if using force is the only possible solution to the problem, it’s best that Washington takes responsibility and steps up to the plate.
Also blogged at the Weekly Standard and Power Line.
The US government should neutralize the Iranian threat NOW for the sake of the entire world.
BTW, more educated US citizens will make aliyah to live in Israel (threat or no threat) than yoredim will leave Israel.
This center-left Democrat proudly supports AIPAC because J-Street is a Joke.
I take a back seat to no one when it comes to Israel’s security. But I think a military attack on Iran (by either the U.S. or Israel) may be one of the least effective ways of actually ensuring Israel’s security. If Iran did have a primitive nuclear capability, it would likely be able to survive an attack because of Iran’s highly diversified and distributed network of facilities. It would then inevitably feel justified in using that capability to respond to the attack. If Iran did not yet have a nuclear weapon capability, a preemptive attack would give them incentive to redouble their efforts.
A deterrent posture may be the best among bad options here. Inform Iran that any weaponization of nuclear capability would promise only permanent and intensified sanctions and isolation (the Europeans and Russians and even Chinese would support this one) while any actual USE OR TRANSFER of nuclear weapons or materials would lead to the immediate and complete destruction of the ruling regime, with special attention paid to the individual leaders. And if necessary, the United States should deny Israel access to the flight routes necessary to attack Iran, if only for Israel’s own good.
I hear and understand all of Netanyahu’s concerns that the mullahs might be impossible to deter because of their religious ideology, but I do not agree that the evidence supports such claims. And while I sympathize with his argument that it is an undesirable risk to rely on the assumption of Iranian rationality, I think it is less of a risk than to lash out against an enemy that is too well-prepared to make an attack successful.
Israel has nuclear warheads aswell.