web analytics
August 31, 2015 / 16 Elul, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Division Over Iran?

Ahmajinedad-022412

It seems like only yesterday that the Obama administration missed no opportunity to declare its solidarity with Israel regarding the threat of a nuclear Iran.

As we noted in a Feb. 10 editorial, President Obama had just declared that the U.S. and Israel “have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we’ve ever had. We are going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to resolve this – hopefully diplomatically.”

And other world leaders were equally resolute about not allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, even if a military solution was what it would ultimately take..

So we were dismayed by some recent statements on the part of senior American military and intelligence officials seemingly designed to draw a line in the sand between Israel and the U.S. on the issue of military action against Iran.

Appearing on CNN this past Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged Israel not to attack Iran; among the reasons he gave were that a military strike would only amount to a temporary setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that it would invite retaliation and be a “destabilizing” factor throughout the Middle East.

He went on to say that “It’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.” He cautioned, however that “I wouldn’t suggest, sitting here today, that we’ve persuaded [Israel] that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion.”

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon delivered a similar message to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at a recent meeting.

Also, Joe Cirincione, of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board that provides the State Department with independent advice on security and diplomatic issues, said it is unclear whether an Israeli attack on Iran “would do enough damage to actually do much more than delay the program for a year or so.”

Cirincione said a strike would doubtless be the beginning of either a greater war or a large-scale containment effort to try to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

American officials aren’t the only ones who seem to be distancing themselves from Israel. On Sunday, British foreign secretary William Hague called on Israel to give the internationally imposed sanctions against Iran more time: “Israel, like everyone else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach we adopted – very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

To be sure, not everyone has to agree with Israel’s approach to Iran and there may indeed be valid arguments for taking a cautious, give-sanctions-a chance approach. But what rankles is the public venue chosen for the expression of disagreement.

What possible policy requirement dictated a public statement that the U.S. was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? What would have been lost if the Obama administration had privately communicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu that it was opposed to a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities at this point in time? As the Wall Street Journal editorialized:

In a single sound bite, Gen. Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the US fears Iran’s retaliation….

If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do what ever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Division Over Iran?”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Dr. Ben Carson (left) at the Western Wall in December 2014.
Pro-Israel Carson Breathing Down Neck of Pro-Israel Trump
Latest Indepth Stories
Proud Members of Jewish Voice for Peace

Jewish Voice for Peace openly supports BDS movement against ALL of Israel & ending the Jewish State.

Israel Football Game in Jerusalem; Alex Swieca, Quarterback

In recent years, there has been a big push to grow and develop American Football here in Israel.

Koran teaches the concept of "Tiqqiya," strategic lying

Unlike Judaism & Christianity which honors “truth,” Islam pursues “Taqiyya,” strategic lying

Rabbi Akiva and Layala Males with Israeli soldiers.

Yashar Lachayal’s mission is to learn what IDF soldiers’ need and get it to them when they need it.

Corbyn leading the Britain’s Labour Party polls, describes Hamas & Hizbullah as England’s “friends.”

The convicted murderer was released from Israeli prison with more than two dozen other sociopaths

JCF is a donor/supporter of The New Israel Fund which supports BDS & wants IDF soldiers prosecuted

The ‘Peace Industry’ promotes its adherents; weak leaders, both military & political, is the result

The conundrum for US Labor Zionists: Lobbying for Iran deal while Israel’s Left lobby’s against it.

What does the Torah want from our small nation described as “they who struggle with God & with men”?

Mr. Nadler’s support for the deal is a naked political gift to a president who has defied logic in his quest to reinvent international affairs according to his ideological inclinations.

In practical terms, the proclamation surely makes a compelling argument:

BDS activists are not shy about discriminating against Israelis simply because they are Israelis –

A Federal Ct Judge ordered the PA to post JUST $10 million due to interfering letter from State Dept

More Articles from Editorial Board

In practical terms, the proclamation surely makes a compelling argument:

BDS activists are not shy about discriminating against Israelis simply because they are Israelis –

The Jewish Press will be keeping tabs on the public positions taken by Democratic members of the Senate and House.

If the reports are accurate, it’s hard to fathom why Sen. Schumer feels it necessary to eschew urging his colleagues to oppose the Iran deal.

Since Republicans are expected to almost uniformly oppose the agreement, the key to its fate will be how many Democrats oppose it.

Jonathan Pollard’s presumptive release in mid-November 2015 had long been a matter of public record, though many may not have been aware of it.

We daresay there are many stories of successful business ventures among chassidim.

The next day, in a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Kerry substantially upped the ante.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/division-over-iran/2012/02/22/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: