Does Netanyahu Trust Obama’s Promises?

I expect that the ball is now in Netanyahu’s court, since he is the Israeli prime minister, to answer that “question of trust” in word and in deed. Whether or not he is confident of Obama’s promises, the meeting of the most powerful pro-Israel lobbies in the United States made it clear and obvious that the administration will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb. If they back up their demands for the military program by using military force (for example, dropping a nuclear bomb) and if such force does not bring about a diplomatic solution, then they will need to resort to sanctions and increasingly severe economic pressure in order to discourage them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

So that Netanyahu would not remain uncertain about Obama’s position, Obama said that, for the sake national security, the United States has a strong interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Obama asserted that he will stop such a thing from occurring (as if Israel were not trying to provoke Iran!)

There is no doubt that what Obama said expressed his concern that Israel might decide to attack Iranian nuclear facilities with a preventive and preemptive military strike before the U.S. presidential election next November. As far as the Iranian nuclear program goes, the Obama administration has an interest in not resorting to the military option (at least not until November) and preventing Israel from doing so, too.

Netanyahu praised Obama’s statement that “all options are still on the table.” The pleasure shown by Israel’s prime minister is a cause for concern. He expressed delight at President Obama’s comment that “Israel should continue to defend itself against any threat.” According to Netanyahu’s interpretation, this would mean that Israel is entitled to (and ought to) go ahead with a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, should it come to the conclusion that Iran is about to make a nuclear bomb, since a strike that is possible before Iran’s completion of a nuclear bomb would be impossible afterward.

If President Obama is now interested in showing confidence in the efficacy of economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts, Netanyahu’s interests are different and, even, opposing. However, they are both interested in results, which so far have not arisen from diplomatic efforts and sanctions. The quickest option would be military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which would either fall to the United States, now before the moment is lost, or to Israel, acting independently. In either case, such a strike would be based upon Israel’s right to defend itself against threats (the threat of Iran wiping it off the map).

What encourages Israel is the certain sign that the United States, particularly in an election year, will not leave it alone to face Iran’s retaliation, even if they take sudden unilateral military action. Furthermore, if Iran’s retaliation were to spill out into other places, the U.S. would be forced to use military force against Iran.

Another thing that encourages Israel to take a risk is the fear that Obama will win a second and final term in the presidency. During his final term, President Obama may become less susceptible to Israeli pressure in matters concerning Iran and the peace process. It is, therefore, necessary that Israel act immediately and either arm President Obama in the struggle against nuclear Iran or cause him to lose in the upcoming election.

It is enough that a preemptive Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and any reaction to this attack, would have consequences for the Syrian crisis, both regionally and internationally. If this turns into reality, the Middle East will become quite different, inviting us to look at it with different eyes.