King Bibi

  

It has been a bad week for Bibi. Columnists on both sides of the Atlantic have taken our prime minister to task for interfering in the U.S presidential elections. Let’s start with Jeffrey Goldberg’s critical account of Netanyahu’s meddling, albeit critical but kinder. Goldberg said the prime minister   criticised the Obama administration because he believes the President won't actually stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
"Netanyahu genuinely believes that Obama, at the crucial moment (whether it is this year, next year or the year after), will flinch and allow Iran to cross the nuclear threshold. This is why he is pestering the President for red lines."
"Does he want Romney to win?" Goldberg asked, "Yes, probably. He's never stated this plainly, but such a desire tracks with his behavior, disposition and ideology. Does he believe Romney has a chance of winning? No. From what I understand, he apparently believes Romney doesn't have much of a chance of winning."  Just the same Netanyahu is prepared to risk alienating President Obama and a large section of the American public in an attempt to coerce the U.S administration into making a decisive stand now and not later.
Peter Beinart writing about "Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" in Newsweek's Daily Beast was a little more assertive, "Bibi thinks he can push the U.S. around. Think again. " Beinart offers an explanation for his behavior, "Netanyahu’s brazen, election-season attack on the Obama administration is that it’s a product of the prime minister’s desperate worries about Iran. And clearly, Netanyahu is desperately worried—in a way that most of Israel’s professional security experts are not." One of them, former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, who said during an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes." "An attack on Iran now before exploring all other approaches is not the right way to do it,"

Dagan argues that a preemptive Israeli strike this year would be "reckless and irresponsible. We are going to ignite, at least from my point of view, a regional war. And wars, you know how they start. You never know how they will end.”

Peter Beinart went on to list Netanyahu's long record of interfering in American politics, " Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents—since long before he became obsessed with Iran." Tracing his past political wheeling and dealing as far back  as 1989 when he was deputy foreign minister, he said, "Netanyahu’s general belief that when push comes to shove, U.S. leaders can be moved in the direction he wants them to go."

Columnist Bill Keller coupled Netanyahu with Mitt Romney. He said, "They have more in common than a background in management consulting and an unswerving devotion to the security of Israel. When it comes to international diplomacy, we are reminded this week, both have the subtle grace of cattle on loco weed. "(If you don't know what loco weed is you are in good company neither did I till I “googled” it.)

Christian Science Monitor staff writer Christa Case Bryant belaboured Bibi in a piece about the   Iran nuclear threat. "Netanyahu goes to the people - the American people, that is." She mentioned his interviews on NBC and CNN.

In NBC's “Meet the Press”, Netanyahu said a policy of containment such as the US had with the Soviet Union was unfeasible because Iran's leadership is different.  "I think Iran is very different, they put their zealotry over their survival – they have suicide bombers all over the place," he said. "I wouldn’t rely on their rationality."  That very emphatic opinion contrasts sharply with the learned views of some of our Iran experts. They claim the Mullahs are zealous in their declarations, but are motivated by an  innate survival instinct.

In the past  Israeli leaders have shown an affinity  for particular U.S. political leaders, however Bibi has gone much further than any of his predecessors.

Jeffrey Goldberg also touched on a few worrying  precedents, " The U.S., as Netanyahu and his allies have pointed out, did not want Pakistan and North Korea to go nuclear,  and they did.” Nevertheless, the U.S has been able contain both countries. Iran would be far more difficult to contain.

Goldberg sums up the prospects for an Israeli go it alone preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites. “This is a job that is too big for Israel to carry-out alone. He needs America, and he needs the man he fears will be president again."

A very hard-hitting opinion piece written by Eric. L. Lewis appeared in the New York Times, last week. "To be sure, Israel is a special ally, but that does not entitle it to make the decision on matters where United States interest and power are inextricably and centrally engaged. It is inconceivable that the United States would permit another ally dependent on American funds and American defense systems to take such a decision unilaterally. It is also inconceivable that we would permit another foreign government to intervene directly and forcefully in our political process to garner popular support for its policies over the objections of the administration."

Haaretz political commentator Anshel Pfeffer had a Jewish New Year message for his readers  A prediction about unilateral action against Iran.

"For better or worse, this Jewish New Year (5773) will not be the year of the bomb, at least if America does not change its position and there is no sign of that happening no matter who wins the elections."  Israeli analysts with good contacts in the administration have recently begun saying that if Israel attacks, the Iranians will treat it as an American act of aggression and retaliate against U.S. targets

Hence the red-light Bibi complained about.  "The red-light over Iran means 'cross us on this at your peril' " says Pfeffer, "And no matter how many times American leaders pay lip-service to Israel's 'sovereign right to defend itself,' the warning is clear. "… "That's clear and shining red - not like in 1967 when the Eshkol government thought it may have a green-light (though it didn't actually) or in other recent cases such as Operation Cast Lead or the attack on the Syrian reactor five years ago this month when the absence of a red-light basically meant green. Neither is it like issues such as settlement-building on which the countries have a difference of opinion but not something that causes undue tension."

A New York Times opinion column entitled “No Rush to War”   made a strong case for a sober cost analysis of preemptive attack option.

“A new report about the costs of a potential war with Iran failed to attract much attention. It says an attack by the United States could set back Iran’s nuclear program four years at most, while a more ambitious goal — ensuring Iran never reconstitutes its nuclear program or ousting the regime — would involve a multiyear conflict that could engulf the region.

The significance of the report by 'The Iran Project'  is not just its sober analysis but the nearly three dozen respected national security experts from both political parties who signed it: including two former national security advisers, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski; former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering; and the retired Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is trying to browbeat President Obama into a pre-emptive strike.”  ….

“There is no reason to doubt President Obama’s oft-repeated commitment to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon. But 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, according to a new poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and 59 percent said if Israel bombs Iran and ignites a war, the United States should not come to its ally’s defense.

A public opinion poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute in conjunction with Tel Aviv University found that 43 percent of Jewish Israelis support Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's firm  engagement of US President Barack Obama on the issue of potential military action against  Iran. Forty percent of Israeli Jews considered Netanyahu's approach unwise.
Notably, in the event of an attack on Iran, 55% of Jewish Israelis said they did not feel at risk of being harmed.
Israel's Jews (46%) reported they feel insecure about their financial situation,

 a sentiment shared by 73% of Arab residents. When the Jewish population was dissected  along political lines, the Index found that substantially more left-wing Jewish Israelis feel  economically secure (63%) than their right-wing counterparts (46%).despite widespread discontent in a number of areas, the majority of Israeli Jewish respondents said they were optimistic about the upcoming year

New York Times correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller commiserated with Israel ambassador Michael B. Oren who is up-to-his-ears in damage control activity on Capitol Hill. “He is representing a prime minister who has infuriated the White House.”

“He’s in a very tough spot because his job is to maintain open communications between two administrations that have staked out positions that are adversarial and yet they can’t admit that they’re adversarial.”

Ms. Bumiller states a well known summary of the current dissonance. “The nub of the tension between the United States and Israel is time: Mr. Netanyahu believes that the Iranians are so close to making a nuclear bomb that Israel soon will not be able to stop it, but the United States, with superior military capabilities, argues that it will be able to detect, and prevent, Iran from passing that point. Israel in turn says it cannot outsource its national security, even to an ally like the United States.”

Elisabeth Bumiller  quoted the high volume exchange between American ambassador, Daniel B. Shapiro and Prime Minister Netanyau. “Ambassador Oren, was also in the room in Israel last month when Mr. Netanyahu, according to Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, dressed down the American ambassador, Daniel B. Shapiro. Mr. Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, was in the meeting and told WJR, a Michigan radio station, that there was a ‘very sharp exchange’ between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Shapiro.

It was, he said, ‘very, very clear the Israelis had lost their patience with the administration over Iran.

Not so, Mr. Oren said.

“Dan did not shout anything, he presented the Obama administration’s position — compellingly, O.K.? The prime minister conveyed Israel’s position — compellingly.”

With the approach of Yom Kippur  I extend the traditional blessing- 

 

 
 

Beni                                        20^th of September, 2012