Will the balloon go up?

Watching three hot air balloons heading eastward across the Jezreel Valley this morning, another airborne event came to mind. I remembered the clusters of blue and white “party balloons” released from our main lawn on Independence Day many years ago. They drifted eastward to Jordan bringing a message of peace. Eventually peace came, albeit a low profile peace. The brightly coloured fabric of this morning's balloons contrasted sharply with the background of subtle soft mountain and valley tones. A sight of pastoral quiet, far removed from the din of sabre-rattling in Jerusalem and Tehran.

A host of soothsayers claim we shouldn't worry; all the war rhetoric is merely hot air that could fill a balloon or two. It's certainly not a sign that the "balloon is about to go up." For example, Dan Murphy, not the lawmaker, but Christian Science Monitor staff writer says we can rest assured that an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme is not likely. Writing a few days before the publication of the IAEA report he said," Israel's fear of a nuclear Iran is understandable. . But it's still hard to see a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities any time soon." Weighing up the pros and cons of a preemptive attack Murphy said, "The risks are high, success is difficult, and whatever hope there may be that the Iranian regime will respond to diplomatic pressure by changing course will evaporate in the wake of a strike. On that basis, it's hard to see Israel making a rational decision to act. That moment, if it ever comes, will probably be driven by the development of an actual Iranian nuclear bomb, and evidence that Iran has the capacity to deliver it to an Israeli city. Warnings of an imminent Israeli attack on Iran have, for years, come and gone with the seasons. In August 2010, Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that in his opinion there was a "greater than 50 percent chance" that Israel would attack Iran by July of 2011. His article attracted a flurry of attention and debate. As it happened, as with all such predictions in the past, the attack didn't happen."

With that in mind I can go ahead and sow lupin seeds in my garden. However maybe I should get a second opinion. The Daily Mail's deputy editor Tim Shipman relying on warnings received from "intelligence chiefs" predicts Israel will launch military action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon as soon as Christmas. He claims, "Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that Israel will attempt to strike against the nuclear sites ‘sooner rather than later’ – with logistical support from the U.S. " On the other hand Los Angeles Times correspondent Edmund Sanders, believes the sabre rattling is a ruse to muster more support for stiffer sanctions against Iran. "It's not the first time Israel has hinted it might strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Whisper campaigns about a possible surprise attack have leaked out before and sometimes appear timed to help U.S. efforts to rally international support for sanctions against Tehran.
Reporting from Jerusalem Sanders said, “But the current round of speculation about an airstrike — fueled by recent statements by anonymous Israeli officials and some high-profile missile and military flight tests last week — sparked an unusually public here about whether Israel should take such a step at this time.

What many suspect began as an attempt by Israel to intimidate Iran and motivate the West to do more to crack down on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program has instead inadvertently exposed public ambivalence, government division and a surprising politicization over one of Israel's most pressing security threats.”
An editorial in the New York Times today managed to sum up the dilemma succinctly. “We’re not sure any mix of sanctions and inducements can wean Tehran of its nuclear ambitions. We are sure that a military attack would be a disaster — and the current saber-rattling from Israel should make everyone nervous. A military strike would not set back Iran’s program for very long. It would rally Iranians around their illegitimate government. And it would produce a huge anti-Israeli and anti-American backlash around the world — whether or not Washington had tried to stop it.”

Dr. Ephraim Asculai worked at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) for over 40 years. In 1986, he went to work at the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)in Vienna on issues of radiation protection. He asks, “Would Iran use its nuclear weapons against another state? The common wisdom is that nuclear weapons serve mainly as deterrents. Many researchers postulate that the Iranian regime is rational and would act accordingly. However, Iranian reasoning and decision making processes demand much more extensive study, and the assumption that Iranian rationality would follow traditional Western assumptions may be unfounded.”

The IAEA report published this week was very well received. Simon Henderson, one of the directors of the Washington Institute said this about the report, “It is a certificate of excellence and courage of the IAEA, led by director general Yukiya Amano, and it puts to shame past reports written by the same organization during the tenure of its Egyptian director general, Dr. Mohamed El Baradei. It's true that in the past two years, since Amano was appointed, the organization has received new evidence and information. However, most of the incriminating evidence was available when El Baradei led the IAEA, but he preferred not to publish the findings, or soften the wording in a way that would confuse the readers and portray Iran in a deceptive light, as if there wasn't conclusive evidence that it was aiming to produce nuclear weapons.

El Baradei, one must add, reiterated his beliefs even in the past few weeks, most notably in an interview with the ‘New Yorker.’"

Henderson concluded, “My hope is that the clear information regarding Iran's secret military nuclear program will persuade the leaders of Russia and China that one can't wait any longer before applying new, more comprehensive sanctions.”

David Remnick referred to the Arab view of the Iran dilemma. Under the title “Iran, Israel, and the Bomb” posted in The New Yorker he wrote, “According to State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks, some Arab states, particularly in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, might object in public to an Israeli raid but would actually be delighted to see it happen. As the Arab Spring has transformed the region, the Iranians and the Saudis are engaged in a none-too-subtle battle for geo-strategic influence. The Saudis hardly see an Iranian bomb as a threat solely to Israel.”

Military affairs correspondent Ron Ben Yishai echoed the blunt and to the point attitude of the Israeli inner government circle. He said, “Israel’s message to the world – either you stop Iran’s nuclear program, or we will.” And explains further, “The Iranians fully realize that Israel’s top politicians are seriously considering a strike in order to curb or at least delay the Iranian race to the bomb. This is assuming there is no non-military, efficient option to secure this aim.” Nevertheless, Ben Yishai qualified the conditions for a preemptive strike, “The above is contingent upon absolute certainty that Iran has already started to produce the bomb and that all other ways to prevent Tehran from doing so have been exhausted. In this instance, and only in this instance, Israel would have no choice but to thwart the existential threat we face as result of nuclear arms in Iranian hands, even at the price of the casualties and damage to be sustained by Israel as result of Iran’s response (and that of its allies – Syria, Hezbollah and the Palestinian groups in Gaza.)” Ron Ben Yishai doesn’t believe a preemptive strike is imminent. “It’s still relatively far off, as according to all estimates the Iranians are not expected to complete their preparations to produce nuclear weapons before 2015. Until that time, harsh global sanctions could force the Iranian leadership to accept a deal with the West that would delay the military nuclear program.”

Philosopher, existential psychoanalyst and publicist Professor Carlo Strenger publishes articles mainly in Haaretz, but also in the New York Times, the Guardian, the Huffington Post and Foreign Policy.

In an article that appeared in Haaretz recently he asked a particularly perplexing question. “Can Israel live with an Iranian bomb?”

Answering the question Strenger claims, “Israel’s security establishment, from the military to intelligence agencies, is spearheading a deep change in Israel’s political culture. It is making clear that the myth that the IDF can do anything if required to do so must no longer be taken for granted. The consensus that emerges in conversations with experts and from reports of various think tanks is fairly clear: While Israel has the capacity to hit some of Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will, at most, set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few years - eighteen months is Aaron David Miller's estimate . What then? If indeed a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to Israel, eighteen months does not provide much comfort. As Miller says, the scenario of Israel attacking Iran every eighteen months is totally unrealistic.”:….”It may well be that Israel will have to get used to the idea of a nuclear Iran. Israel’s public, raised on the notion that the IDF can solve anything, needs to undergo a profound change. We must get used to think in different terms; strategy is about risk management, not about the total elimination of risks. This does not mean that Israel and the Free World should not do what can be done realistically and without catastrophic consequences to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. But it means that we must also prepare for life with a nuclear Iran. This is not a defeatist position, it’s just realistic. The U.S. had to learn to live with the Soviet Union going nuclear, and then China. India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, have lived in a standoff and a cold war that flares up periodically for decades. Joining the club of powers that live in a nuclear balance of mutual deterrence may not be our favorite option. But it may help to remember that it is a club that has been in existence for quite some time.”

Have a good weekend.

Beni 10^th of November, 2011.