Steadfast chatterboxes

"It won't happen." Z assured me. Z is arguably the most sagacious of our breakfast parliament* sages. He was referring to the probability of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. I didn't really need his warranty, Maariv columnist Ben Caspit had already promised his readers, "You can all relax — in the last two weeks, nothing new has happened with regard to an attack on Iran. The cabinet hasn’t convened, the defence minister hasn’t summoned the IDF general staff and no new information has been received. Everything that is known today was known two months ago."

*The "breakfast parliament" is an elite group of "know-alls" that gathers on weekdays over breakfast in the factory where I work.

 An editorial in the New York Times this week echoed the same doubt, "Israeli leaders are again talking about possible military action against Iran. This is, at best, mischievous and, at worst, irresponsible, especially when diplomacy has time to run."

Netanyahu and Barak are sure we are running out of time. Diplomacy and even sanctions are only buying Iran time to enrich more uranium.

The Obama administration doesn't share that assessment. President Obama insists we still have time.

 "Time yet for a hundred indecisions,

And for a hundred visions and revisions."

Despite reports that the Obama administration and the Israeli government hold similar views regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, they disagree on key aspects of that threat.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak coined the phrase “zone of immunity” warning that Iran is moving crucial elements of its nuclear programme into deep bunkers where they can no longer be destroyed from the air.

Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit wrote of an interview with the defence minister. For some unexplained reason Shavit didn’t refer to him by name instead he used the pseudonym “decision-maker.” Barak explained the difference in assessments as follows:  “For the Americans, the Iranians are not yet approaching the immunity zone − because the Americans have much larger bombers and bombs, and the ability to repeat the operation many times.              But for us, Iran could soon enter the immunity zone and when that happens, it means putting a matter that is vital to our survival in the hands of the United States. Israel cannot allow this to happen. It cannot place the responsibility for its security and future in the hands of even its best and most loyal friend.” Netanyahu too made an oblique reference to self-reliance. When he visited Kerem Shalom last week he said that Israel’s security is dependent on Israel alone.

Various commentators have related to the advantages and disadvantages of attacking Iran before or following the U.S. presidential elections. Obviously this is an inopportune time for the U.S to initiate or to be drawn into an attack on Iran. Sensing that time is running out Netanyahu and Barak might be tempted to decide that this year  is the best time to attack Iran, with or without U.S help. The IDF cannot undertake a sustained attack flying multiple sorties. Furthermore its bunker-buster bombs are less effective than the newer more powerful bombs that the U.S. air-force has in its arsenal.                                                       The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summed up the situation in one sentence, "Israel can delay but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities."                                                                                                                         Israeli political affairs analyst  and journalist  Amnon Abramovich preferred quoting  Niccolò Machiavelli “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
In his column in The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg gave seven reasons why Israel should not attack Iran's nuclear facilities and quoted from Aluf Benn, the editor of Haaretz, "All the signs show that the 'international community,' meaning the western powers and the U.S. in the lead, seem to have reconciled themselves with Israel's talk of a military strike - and now they are pushing Netanyahu to stand by his rhetoric and send his bombers to their targets in Iran. In general terms, the market has already accounted for the Israeli strike in its assessment of the risk of the undertaking, and it is now waiting for the expectation to be realized." And then, of course, there is Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad, who warned earlier this month that Iran should fear an Israeli strike over the next twelve weeks.
Goldberg reasons, “Obviously, the Obama Administration believes that Netanyahu and Barak are itching to give the strike order soon. Otherwise, why would it have sent half the senior national security team to Israel over the past several weeks?”
Goldberg's seventh reason is worth quoting verbatim, "The current American president is deeply serious about preventing Iran from going nuclear. I believe he would eventually use force (more effectively, obviously, than Israel) to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. His position will be severely compromised if Israel jumps the gun and attacks now. Again, what I worry about, at bottom, is that an Israeli attack would inadvertently create conditions for an acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program."                                                                                                                              “Are Israelis tough enough for long war with Iran?” asked Reuters  Middle East correspondent Dan Williams. His piece was quoted by The Daily Star Lebanon without mentioning the source.                                                                                                            “Philip Handleman, U.S.-based co-author of “Air Combat Reader – Historic Feats and Aviation Legends,” said, “He believed Israel was willing to tackle Iran though bereft of the long-range bombers and refueling planes available to the Americans.                                                                                                                                                 I don’t think Israel would be ‘banking on’ subsequent U.S. military involvement, though that might very well happen. If Israel strikes, it would be out of a pureness of heart, a very primordial survivalist instinct,” and added “Israel’s resilience has been underestimated in the past.”

Ben Caspit (quoted above) asked, “How resolute are they?

“Netanyahu and Barak: Steadfast chatterboxes,” was the heading he chose for his column. A few days earlier Netanyahu criticized the news media for  writing  and talking too much about the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He called them chatterboxes.  

“Personally, I have a hard time believing those two,” said Caspit.                                      Netanyahu, because he has never made a truly difficult decision  in his life. The few tough ones he did make were bad. The man who was scared to impose a tax on fruits and vegetables is going to go to war with Iran?   ( Recently Netanyahu vacillated, unable to decide to impose  added value tax on fruit and vegetables).

Is the man who didn’t want to take down a Syrian reactor in a simple surgical strike the same man who will lead the IDF in a complicated, critical and dangerous operation, 1,500 kilometers deep into Iran? (According to reliable reports Netanyahu opposed the attack on the Syrian reactor. The reactor was destroyed but Israel has never confirmed that it carried out the attack)

Does all of this mean that they are really bluffing? I don’t know. They have the right to bluff, and they have the right not to bluff. They should sit, discuss, go over information, and decide already. They are leaders, and the power is in their hands. For the moment, their "determination" amounts to bluster. From the outside, it seems like they are not being taken seriously inside Israel, nor the rest of the world for getting too worked up. Who knows, maybe in the end they’ll bomb Iran just to prove they were serious.”.

Earlier last week, a leak to the Yediot Ahronot revealed that the cream of Israel's military leaders are against attacking  Iran - known in its aseptic version as a  "preemptive strike".
It's an impressive cast of characters. Here we have the Chief of the General Staff Benny Gantz; the chief of operations of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Ya'akov Ayash; Tamir Pardo, the head of the  Mossad; Aviv Kochavi, who heads the Military Intelligence Directorate; the department heads of Mossad; the head of the Israeli Air Force Amir Eshel; not to mention at least four ministers of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's eight-man "kitchen cabinet".

Some people have expressed qualified support for an attack  . They say they would only support an attack on Iran if Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei - or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors - announced a major weaponization game changer.. Others  like retired Mossad heads Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi say they will only support an attack if the US is on board.

Veteran Israeli columnists Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer wrote,“Many in the US, including, so it seems, Obama Administration officials, are convinced that the military operation Netanyahu and Barak are promoting is actually designed to achieve one thing — to drag the US, contrary to its will, into a war against Iran. If Israel encounters difficulties the Americans will have no choice but to act. Barak firmly denied such alleged intentions. He evaluates that the United States will not get involved in war, but rather will do its best to bring it to an end. However, it will give Israel the keys to its emergency depots, set up in Israel in the past. It's all that Israel will need. [In the late 1980s, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the US invested heavily in building up emergency military depots in Israel. These depots facilitated the American rapid deployment during the Gulf war. The depots are still being used]”

After Efraim Halevy said that Iran should fear an imminent  Israeli strike,. Agence France-Presse (AFP) checked the Iranian reaction to all the Israeli sabre-rattling. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramim Mehmanparast commented, "In our calculations, we aren't taking these claims very seriously because we see them as hollow and baseless,"            “It seems that Netanyahu and Barak are making a special effort now to prepare the Israeli public for an attack on Iran,” said Shlomo Brom, a former commander of the army’s Strategic Planning Division and currently a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “Any strike could come within the next six months. In the past, rhetoric was directed at pushing the international community to take stronger action against Iran.”

Aaron David Miller, former State Department official and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington policy group, said “ Israel is almost in the comic situation of threatening to strike repeatedly -- this is the third threat in three months -- but nothing ever happens, which in my view is damaging its credibility,”

In conclusion I want to quote Z again (the same breakfast parliament sage).

 He chose those immortal words, "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."

Have a good weekend

Beni,                           16^th of August, 2012.