Has Israel Embroiled the US in Iran?
Broadcasters are vying to vex American Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, though what worries him the most is Israeli threats of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the coming months, and in particular, American estimates suggesting that Israel will move an attack forward to March or April.
Washington is confronted with an Israeli position in which Prime Minister Netanyahu, fearing that Iran will soon be able to store enough enriched uranium deep underground for a nuclear weapon, does not want to leave Israel’s fate hanging on an American decision for lack of reliable intelligence information.
President Obama and Panetta have warned Israel of the consequences of an attack, that it will hinder the effectiveness of economic sanctions on Iran. Washington believes sanctions have started to succeed and will thwart Iran’s nuclear program. However, the American administration is also holding detailed discussions regarding an Israeli attack on Iran. Will the Iranian response target U.S. ships in the region or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, and how much impact will this have on oil prices, and consequently on the weak U.S. economy? Washington is, however, trying to distance itself from any intervention or conflict with Iran as long as Tehran does not target U.S. interests, something that would invoke a strong response from Washington. U.S. officials are warning Tehran that Washington is committed to Israeli security and has been for the last 60 years, and that a strike on Israeli civilians will entail U.S. intervention.
Despite the mood surrounding the issue, observers believe it would be difficult to destroy the underground Iranian nuclear reactors in the city of Qom with an Israeli air strike, and that Iran would, of course, respond with a barrage of missiles on Israel.
U.S. military personnel connected with Israeli counterparts involved in the issue spoke of an attack scenario comprising a short war lasting five days following limited Israeli air attacks, at the end of which the United Nations will announce a ceasefire. Tehran has repeatedly stressed that it would be easy to inflame a war but difficult to quell because Iranians, who have grown in military strength and armed capability, will not easily accept defeat in front of the world, especially after successive Iranian threats of a widespread response against Israel, and that those attacks will mean the end of the Zionist entity.
Facing Israeli threats of a strike on Iran, the Americans have arrived at two ways to solve the Iranian nuclear issue. They either open Iran up to serious negotiations in order to reach a guarantee that its nuclear program will be used solely for peaceful civilian purposes, or subject Iran to mounting secret U.S. operations to end its ability to continue in its nuclear program, to the point where Israel believes it unnecessary to launch an attack on its nuclear facilities.
The recent Israeli escalation against Iran, and the Israeli Defense Minister’s statements that it will be his country that will, in the end, decide if it will launch an offensive on Iran, are perhaps intended to embroil the United States and apply more pressure on it, and to provoke Iran to make unsound decisions.
Washington is confronted with an Israeli position in which Prime Minister Netanyahu, fearing that Iran will soon be able to store enough enriched uranium deep underground for a nuclear weapon, does not want to leave Israel’s fate hanging on an American decision for lack of reliable intelligence information.
President Obama and Panetta have warned Israel of the consequences of an attack, that it will hinder the effectiveness of economic sanctions on Iran. Washington believes sanctions have started to succeed and will thwart Iran’s nuclear program. However, the American administration is also holding detailed discussions regarding an Israeli attack on Iran. Will the Iranian response target U.S. ships in the region or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, and how much impact will this have on oil prices, and consequently on the weak U.S. economy? Washington is, however, trying to distance itself from any intervention or conflict with Iran as long as Tehran does not target U.S. interests, something that would invoke a strong response from Washington. U.S. officials are warning Tehran that Washington is committed to Israeli security and has been for the last 60 years, and that a strike on Israeli civilians will entail U.S. intervention.
Despite the mood surrounding the issue, observers believe it would be difficult to destroy the underground Iranian nuclear reactors in the city of Qom with an Israeli air strike, and that Iran would, of course, respond with a barrage of missiles on Israel.
U.S. military personnel connected with Israeli counterparts involved in the issue spoke of an attack scenario comprising a short war lasting five days following limited Israeli air attacks, at the end of which the United Nations will announce a ceasefire. Tehran has repeatedly stressed that it would be easy to inflame a war but difficult to quell because Iranians, who have grown in military strength and armed capability, will not easily accept defeat in front of the world, especially after successive Iranian threats of a widespread response against Israel, and that those attacks will mean the end of the Zionist entity.
Facing Israeli threats of a strike on Iran, the Americans have arrived at two ways to solve the Iranian nuclear issue. They either open Iran up to serious negotiations in order to reach a guarantee that its nuclear program will be used solely for peaceful civilian purposes, or subject Iran to mounting secret U.S. operations to end its ability to continue in its nuclear program, to the point where Israel believes it unnecessary to launch an attack on its nuclear facilities.
The recent Israeli escalation against Iran, and the Israeli Defense Minister’s statements that it will be his country that will, in the end, decide if it will launch an offensive on Iran, are perhaps intended to embroil the United States and apply more pressure on it, and to provoke Iran to make unsound decisions.
Israel is only 50 percent to blame for the US being embroiled. The other 50 percent belongs to Obama. As Trita Parsi has pointed out, 45 minutes of diplomacy is evidence that Obama has never really put diplomacy “on the table”, along with military action and regime change. What else is not “on the table” is peace. The US doesn’t do peace.