Netanyahu and Barak
There is abundant speculation these days about whether Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is widely believed in both Israel and the United States that this would be a remarkably foolish move. I share that sentiment. Yet Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, seem to disagree and keep talking like an Israeli attack is in the offing.
Some people think these Israeli leaders are bluffing and they will not authorize an attack on Iran. I hope they are right, and indeed I do not think Israel will strike Iran in the end. Still, I believe there is a non-trivial chance that Netanyahu and Barak will launch a war. Let me spell out the calculations that could underpin a decision by them to turn the dogs of war loose.
Netanyahu and Barak might reason as follows:
1. There is all this talk about how an attack will threaten our relations with the United States, but there is every reason to think our American supporters can control events there and guarantee a favorable outcome; they always do. Furthermore, who in the United States is going to stand up and criticize us? These people are basically wussies. In fact, the Americans will probably come in on our side if we go to war before the election.
2. The Europeans are wussies too. They constantly carp about our treatment of the Palestinians, but they still upgrade their relations with us. They won’t cause us any serious problems, and if they try to, we can silence them by reminding them of the Holocaust. That always works.
3. Clausewitz taught us that war is the realm of unintended consequences, which is usually interpreted to mean that war leads to unexpected trouble. But it can also lead to unforeseen positive consequences, and who knows, a war with Iran may work to our advantage in the end. You just never know. Of course, it is a leap in the dark, but it beats sitting and waiting while Iran develops nuclear weapons, which would be a dreadful outcome. After all, there is good reason to think the Iranians might use those weapons against us.
4. Iranian nuclear weapons are an important issue for sure, but it is even more important that we be able to continue expanding settlements in Judea and Samaria and prevent a two-state solution. Threatening a war with Iran has done much to take the Palestinian issue off the front burner in recent months. An actual war – especially since it will be protracted – will insulate us from meaningful criticism for at least a few years. By then, the two-state solution will be dead and buried. All of this is very important if Obama wins a second term, because then he will start leaning on us again to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own.
5. Other than relying on the lobby, the best way to maintain firm America and European support in the years ahead is to get the West even more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, maybe even create a clash of civilizations. A war with Iran would go a long way toward achieving that goal. It would do wonders for poisoning relations between the United States and the Arab and Islamic world, which would cause the Americans and the Europeans to have even friendlier relations with us.
6. All of this talk about a “pivot to Asia” has us worried. There is no better way to thwart that proposed strategic shift than to get the Americans involved in another war in the Middle East.
7. If the election looks close in the fall, we strike Iran because that will help tip the balance in Romney’s favor. And if Obama looks like he is going to win, we attack before the election because he will be free to stop us after he wins a second term, just as George Bush refused to give us a green light in 2008, when we wanted to solve the problem once and for all.
Again, I do not think Netanyahu and Barak will go to war against Iran, but they could plausibly concoct a story along the lines described above and convince themselves that it makes sense to attack Iran before the November election. Of course, they would be wrong.
U.S. and Ruropeans are wussies for sure. As Netanyahu has shared before Israel controls the U.S. policy on the conflict through the I lobby.
Mearsheimer has also put forward that the door to a two state solution has basically all ready been closed.
One thing he does not address is how would Iran respond. Logical to think that they would have every right to attack Israel. Every right.
Amazing that what never ever comes up is Israel being pressured to sign the IAEA’s Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. That would settle the fears about Israel using nuclear weapons in that region quite a bit
My guess is that while Nutty Yahoo may indeed formulate such a line of thinking, he will probably have a revolt from his defense establishment on this issue.
The most telling of all this bluster about attacking Iran is the fact that they are talking about it at all. It makes no military sense to advertise your intentions to attack Iran before doing so, as it removes the element of surprise. They have gone as far as to even pinpoint the specific time that they will attack.
I believe that they are doing this, as Mearsheimer says, to divert attention from the Palestinian issue – and they have succeeded in doing that.
Hitler had his reasons for attacking Russia in June 1941, but that didn’t mean it was not a dreadful miscalculation.
Mearsheimer doesn’t mention that a regional war could be a perfect opportunity for Israel to engage in some ethnic cleansing.
The strongest argument I see against the idea of Israel attacking Iran is that if an attack were truly in the cards, there would be absolutely no discussion until after the event, and even then the Israelis would not comment or they would deny it. If Israel was going to attack, it would have done so years ago before Iran dug to the bottom of the mountain, and Bibi or Sharon or whomever wouldn’t have asked permission from the US. The Israelis, judging by recent history, are firm believers in the Pearl Harbor approach to making a point.
Something else is going on. Maybe they are manipulating oil prices. Maybe they are diverting attention from the rape of Palestine. Maybe this sort of bs generates income from the likes of Adelson. There is a reason for it.
It’s great to see you post here, Professor Mearsheimer! You list several good reasons we should be concerned that Netanyahu thinks “America is a thing easily moved” — especially before an election.