Decisions on Iran
The United States will only be able to contain Israel if it deals with the Iranian nuclear threat.
Viewed from America, neither the priorities nor the situation are analyzed the same way. In both Europe and the U.S., the key issue is the level of economic activity and its corollary, unemployment. Although the figures are comparable, in the United States they will determine the vote: Depending on whether or not growth resumes and, above all, whether or not jobless figures drop significantly, Barack Obama will or will not have a chance of re-election. In Europe, the emphasis is still on austerity and spending cuts, despite the urgent need to reactivate the economy and reverse the jobless trend, with 25 million currently unemployed across the European Union.
Economics aside, the themes dominating the U.S. campaign to name the Republican presidential candidate can seem surreal. Whether or not Obama is really a Christian is publicly debated, for example, while the Republican candidates argue not only about abortion but about contraception, which they now label as immoral. Thank God (for want of a better expression) that Europe is still free of campaigns like this, which seem destined to transport us back to the Middle Ages. But one area in which the difference is more palpable is that of the nuclear question, and it concerns Europeans and Americans alike.
This week will be decisive, marked by the meeting of the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president. On the agenda: the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. The key question is whether the U.S. continues to use its veto or allows or even encourages the Israeli government, apparently convinced of the need for such an attack, to go ahead. From the European point of view, Obama's initial position — to try everything before resorting to armed conflict — seems to make the most sense, and the announcement of an agreement between the U.S. and North Korea to declare a moratorium on Pyongyang's nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid comes at an opportune moment.
From the Israeli point of view, however, any attempt to compare Iran with North Korea provides no reassurance, since Prime Minister Netanyahu is convinced that sanctions against Iran will not get the job done anyway. For the Republicans’ part, presidential candidates rival each other in unpleasant epithets against Obama, branding him weak and ingenuous; everyone wants a turn with him. And they agree with Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, that the military consensus is enough to be convinced of the need to take action.
In reality, there is no shortage of arguments. Firstly, because given the short distances involved, the rule normally applied to nuclear armament — the dissuasion of the stronger nation by the weaker nation — wouldn't work in this part of the world. The rule states that nuclear weapons secure the peace because the side that launches an attack knows that it, too, will be destroyed in retaliation. That was the experience during the Cold War. But in this case, the missiles are so fast and the distances involved so short that experts seriously doubt whether Israel would have time to respond if Iran were to attack. Secondly, the argument that a preventive bombardment would only result in a two- or three-year respite has been questioned by Israelis, who recall that the destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria's nuclear installations in 2007 effectively put both countries out of the nuclear arms race. Finally, to those who object that a pre-emptive strike would destabilize the region, the Israelis and their Americans friends reply that the prospect of an Iran with nuclear capacity presents an even greater risk of instability. And as if to prove the argument, the tacit support of Sunni regimes, headed by Saudi Arabia, seems to advance the prospect of an Israeli operation.
In Europe, on the other hand, the operation appears to carry more risks than advantages. In recent history, Iran has been an ally of Israel and is only dangerous now because of the regime currently in power. The priority should therefore be to help the opposition bring down Ahmadinejad, who cheated in the elections to hang on to power. A bomb strike on Iranian nuclear installations could weaken that opposition and serve to strengthen the cohesion around the Iranian regime.
In any event, though the Pentagon and U.S. agencies seem reticent, Obama has to make the decision. He will only be able to contain the Israelis if he guarantees that the U.S. will take care of the Iranian nuclear threat. Judging by the tone of Barack Obama's Republican rivals, right now it will be hard for him to give a convincing enough guarantee. That will leave him with little option but to choose a suitable date for Israel's pre-emptive strike, backed by Washington. We're probably looking at the middle of this summer — unless Obama manages to convince Netanyahu of the dangers of an attack on Iran. The answer, this week.
Viewed from America, neither the priorities nor the situation are analyzed the same way. In both Europe and the U.S., the key issue is the level of economic activity and its corollary, unemployment. Although the figures are comparable, in the United States they will determine the vote: Depending on whether or not growth resumes and, above all, whether or not jobless figures drop significantly, Barack Obama will or will not have a chance of re-election. In Europe, the emphasis is still on austerity and spending cuts, despite the urgent need to reactivate the economy and reverse the jobless trend, with 25 million currently unemployed across the European Union.
Economics aside, the themes dominating the U.S. campaign to name the Republican presidential candidate can seem surreal. Whether or not Obama is really a Christian is publicly debated, for example, while the Republican candidates argue not only about abortion but about contraception, which they now label as immoral. Thank God (for want of a better expression) that Europe is still free of campaigns like this, which seem destined to transport us back to the Middle Ages. But one area in which the difference is more palpable is that of the nuclear question, and it concerns Europeans and Americans alike.
This week will be decisive, marked by the meeting of the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president. On the agenda: the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear installations. The key question is whether the U.S. continues to use its veto or allows or even encourages the Israeli government, apparently convinced of the need for such an attack, to go ahead. From the European point of view, Obama's initial position — to try everything before resorting to armed conflict — seems to make the most sense, and the announcement of an agreement between the U.S. and North Korea to declare a moratorium on Pyongyang's nuclear program in exchange for U.S. aid comes at an opportune moment.
From the Israeli point of view, however, any attempt to compare Iran with North Korea provides no reassurance, since Prime Minister Netanyahu is convinced that sanctions against Iran will not get the job done anyway. For the Republicans’ part, presidential candidates rival each other in unpleasant epithets against Obama, branding him weak and ingenuous; everyone wants a turn with him. And they agree with Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, that the military consensus is enough to be convinced of the need to take action.
In reality, there is no shortage of arguments. Firstly, because given the short distances involved, the rule normally applied to nuclear armament — the dissuasion of the stronger nation by the weaker nation — wouldn't work in this part of the world. The rule states that nuclear weapons secure the peace because the side that launches an attack knows that it, too, will be destroyed in retaliation. That was the experience during the Cold War. But in this case, the missiles are so fast and the distances involved so short that experts seriously doubt whether Israel would have time to respond if Iran were to attack. Secondly, the argument that a preventive bombardment would only result in a two- or three-year respite has been questioned by Israelis, who recall that the destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria's nuclear installations in 2007 effectively put both countries out of the nuclear arms race. Finally, to those who object that a pre-emptive strike would destabilize the region, the Israelis and their Americans friends reply that the prospect of an Iran with nuclear capacity presents an even greater risk of instability. And as if to prove the argument, the tacit support of Sunni regimes, headed by Saudi Arabia, seems to advance the prospect of an Israeli operation.
In Europe, on the other hand, the operation appears to carry more risks than advantages. In recent history, Iran has been an ally of Israel and is only dangerous now because of the regime currently in power. The priority should therefore be to help the opposition bring down Ahmadinejad, who cheated in the elections to hang on to power. A bomb strike on Iranian nuclear installations could weaken that opposition and serve to strengthen the cohesion around the Iranian regime.
In any event, though the Pentagon and U.S. agencies seem reticent, Obama has to make the decision. He will only be able to contain the Israelis if he guarantees that the U.S. will take care of the Iranian nuclear threat. Judging by the tone of Barack Obama's Republican rivals, right now it will be hard for him to give a convincing enough guarantee. That will leave him with little option but to choose a suitable date for Israel's pre-emptive strike, backed by Washington. We're probably looking at the middle of this summer — unless Obama manages to convince Netanyahu of the dangers of an attack on Iran. The answer, this week.