Israel and the United States: When the Tail Wags the Dog

In today’s printed edition of my column, I address the consequences of an eventual Israeli bombing of Iran from the point of view of the European Union’s interests. Shortly after we examine “the day after,” I support, we will see that we should avoid this bombing at all cost. Today is still “the day before,” and nevertheless, it does not seem like the E.U. is doing much to dissuade Israel from carrying out this attack.

Is this attack so imminent? It seems that way. In the article “The Ticking Clock” from Foreign Policy magazine, Robert Haddick argues that the countdown has already begun. In addition to various considerations, the leaked comment by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense, to the Washington Post at the beginning of the month is an important sign that Israel could bomb at any moment beginning in April.

First, the sanctions are not working. Iran does whichever negotiation buys time, but it does not facilitate complete access to the inspectors to all of its installations, nor does it recognize that its nuclear ambitions have a military character, which indicates that the sanctions will not lead it to sacrifice its nuclear program.

Secondly, Iranians could be at the point of transferring their production of enriched uranium to the Fordow facility, which is situated inside of a mountain and could therefore not be bombed effectively. It is what the Israelis call “crossing the zone of immunity.” The window, they argue, is closed: once transferred to Fordow, the nuclear program could not be detained.

Thirdly, Israel is not a deterring factor, because they do not have the capability to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program in one surprise attack, as their installations are already dispersed and well-protected. On the contrary: Israel only wants to start — knowing the Iranian response will be to launch missiles at Israel and at United States ships in the Strait of Hormuz — forcing the U.S. to intervene and “finish the job.”

Hence the assertion “the tail wags the dog.” We are witnessing an incredible tug of war between Israel and the United States. Obama and Panetta are doing everything possible to stop Israel from launching an attack. But “everything possible” does not seem like much: is it that Obama, the president of the most powerful country in the world, cannot dissuade Netanyahu from undertaking a war that the U.S. does not consider suitable to its interests? Is it that after all these years of protecting Israel in the UN, arming it and helping it economically, Washington does not have leverage over Tel Aviv?

It seems unbelievable, but true. If there is a bilateral relationship of the United States where Washington does not have the upper hand it is its relationship with Israel. Rather the contrary, as documented some time ago by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in a controversial but very interesting book (“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”), that for some time the foreign policy of the United States toward Israel has served Israel’s interests, not those of the United States. It is not a typical conspiracy theory but rather an argument very locked in place by two of the most respected American experts on foreign policy, two very conservative men, written in the the realist tradition of international relations and who work at very prestigious universities. Through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, they maintain, Israel has managed to get the U.S. to tend to Israeli interests over its own or, as is actually the case, impose their will. The paradox is evident; Obama, who took office with a message in Farsi extending a hand to Iranians, may well end up bombing Iran against his will.