Monday, May 21, 2012 - 29 Iyar 5772
 
InDepth
e-Edition
051812 FINAL
Sponsored Post
Technion Laboratory 640 Going Beyond the Medical Norm

For many American Jewish students who want to study medicine, studying at the Technion American Medical School in Haifa is an attractive option.



Division Over Iran?

By: Editorial Board
print
   
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.

print
   

About the Author:


You might also be interested in:


no comments

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
At Least 50 Thousand Haredim Assemble to Decry Dangers of the Internet
Latest Indepth Stories
Goodbye to the Oil Weapon
New sources of oil and gas found in the US, Canada and South America are expected to make the Western Hemisphere energy self-sufficient by 2030. Even Israel has new sources of natural gas. And the rest of the world’s energy supply will no longer be hostage to the Mideast-dominated OPEC cartel. So at long last we can say goodbye to the ‘oil weapon’ and to the use of surplus oil money to buy politicians and academics.
IMRA: Gestures To PA – But Keep The Gloves Off
Making gestures should in no way be accompanied by a reconciliatory approach towards objectionable Palestinian behavior and Palestinian pronouncements. Toning down criticism of the PA not only doesn’t serve the interests of Israel – it ultimately does not serve the interests of the Palestinians.
Rubin Reports: The Middle East – Brave New World or Scary New Master?
Why would a leading figure in Turkey's ruling Islamist party identify the era of rising Islamism as a “great shame…[in which the Middle East ] fell prey to the thirst of barbarian bloodshed”?
How to Write About Israel
Weigh every story one way. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack is rarely a retaliation for anything. When Israeli planes bomb a terrorist hideout, suggest that this latest action only feeds the "Cycle of Violence" and quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations.
Mordechai Kedar: The Syrian Crisis Spills Over into Lebanon
From the tragedy of Tripoli and Lebanon we can draw several conclusions: in the Middle East it is not possible to establish a state with an Arab society and Western political characteristics; Iranian involvement - even the economic and cultural – will ultimately undermine Western cultural and political influence in the Middle East; and whoever legitimizes jihad against Israel receives terror in his own streets in return.
Louis C.K. – Not a Jew
One of the main things I’ve learned about the differences between Jews and non-Jews (namely Christians) is that non-Jews place a great deal of importance on how you feel, what you believe, your intentions, your inner motivations for being good. By contrast, according my friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Jews “care far less about what you believe. What you do is more important.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/the-terrorist-cell-that-couldnt-shoot-straight/2012/05/20/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: