There’s Nothing New in the West

“If we have to do it, we will deal with it,” remarked Panetta and did not really clarify what “it” is. Apparently, a task for palm readers. Presumably — a shift.

Difficult is the craft of the decision-makers and analysts on both sides of the Atlantic. In Washington, they are trying to figure out the tough declarations and transparent actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and to understand whether the Israelis indeed intend to act in a unilateral and uncoordinated manner against Iran. Over here, on the other side, [we] are busy with intensively reading the cards that the Americans arrange and mix on the table — cards designed to convey their agreement or disagreement with a military operation or Israeli raid.

Just a few weeks ago, the secretary of Defense appeared in front of the Saban Forum, and the interpretations were quick to crown his address as the most sharp and clear statement regarding an Israeli attack. Ostensibly, he established that a military strike would be ineffective, complicated and volatile, and on that occasion made it clear to Israel that it must not act alone and without coordination with the Americans. Here, the commentators announced, it’s an accurate manifesto, designed to prevent any Israeli action.

Suddenly yesterday, everything has turned around. Panetta gave an interview to the American show “60 Minutes,” where he specified the Iranian timetable for the ability to obtain a bomb (a year), and then, so it appeared, talked about the possibility of a military assault — not only Israeli, but also an American one. “If we have to do it, we will deal with it,” Panetta said and did not exactly elaborate what “it” is.

It’s an issue for palm readers, in all likelihood, to get “it.” In any case, seemingly, a turn, a zigzag, a decisive about-face: The Americans (fueled by a secret Israeli intelligence?) changed their position.

In Other Words: Actually, Not Much New

The reality is apparently a little more complicated. Both at the Saban Forum and yesterday, the American defense secretary asserted: “The president has made it very clear that we have not taken any options off the table.” He also maintained that Iran’s possession of nuclear capability is “unacceptable” for the U.S. — another familiar formula. He defined Iran having nuclear weapons as “a red line,” and we’ve heard that one before as well. And when asked what the U.S. is possibly going to need to do, he answered: “If they proceed, and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.”

This is a sentence that should be read very carefully. First, the American secretary of Defense is not saying that should the Iranians advance to nuclear weapons, the U.S. will respond militarily. He says that America will take necessary steps — and these could be harsher diplomatic ones. But the more interesting part is the use of the phrasing “proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon.” For the Iranians, as the U.S. claims, are now engaged in illegal nuclear development, and therefore, Panetta wouldn’t have referred to the present as a negative scenario in the future. Clearly, Panetta is not talking about the current state of affairs. Barak and Netanyahu are talking about it.

In fact, it seems like the defense secretary is referring to the scenario of a “breakthrough.” That’s a Doomsday end-game, in the framework in which the Iranians get rid of the IAEA cameras in their nuclear facilities, prohibit the entry of inspectors, break the seals and enrich their uranium to a military level in broad daylight. Such a course of events would lead Iran to a conflict and confrontation not only with the U.S. and Israel, but also, plausibly, with the entire world. In other words: In practice, he has not said much of anything new.

However, Panetta delivered his message in a very firm way and in a tone that gave an impression that the U.S. is ready to take the military offensive. This is significant and may have something to do with the effort of the Obama administration to improve its relations with Israel and the Jewish community — and perhaps, to reduce the damages of the expressions of the senior administration officials over the recent period. And there’s something else: More and more voices in the U.S. estimate that Obama himself won’t shrink from a military attack on Iran, surprising as it sounds. Here we go: A new morning has come and with it, another reading in the American stars.