Netan-Yahoo

By Steve Hynd

Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic interviewed Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the rightwing hawk sent an unambiguous message to Obama: stop Iran's nuclear program or I will.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

....Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

This is doubly ridiculous, doubly insane. For one thing, there's absolutely no evidence that Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapon, despite what Israel and its US supporters (even those in the Obama administration) might claim. The IAEA's assessment to date is in full agreement with the 2007 NIE which Admiral Blair recently said was still the best consensus of the U.S. intelligence community: that there "is no evidence that the weapons program continued after 2004"

For a second, any strike by Israel on Iran would have to pass through US-controlled airspace (the Persian Gulf or Iraq) or through the airspace of America's NATO ally Turkey (also patrolled by U.S. warplanes). An Israeli strike on Iran would either be contested by American air defenses or seen as carried out with American complicity if it was allowed to proceed unchallenged. 

That leads Kevin Drum to believe that Netanyahu is bluffing and MJ Rosenberg to observe:

An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client. In other words, any blowback from an Israeli attack is as likely to be against us as against Israel. Americans in Iraq, or here at home, could pay the ultimate price.

President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington.

...In this week's New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that, just before leaving office, Dick Cheney told the Israelis that Obama is a wimp and could be ignored.

Netanyahu appears to have bought into the Cheney thesis and is now testing it by insulting the President on the day he is sworn in as Prime Minister. Let's see if Obama let's him get away with it. My guess is that Bibi just made the first major blunder of his tenure.

Meanwhile, over on the insane Right, Scott Johnson of Powerline is comparing Netanyahu to Churchill. No, really. But what else could we expect of blog where one of the co-authors called Bush an "unsung genius"?

Comments

[Zifnab]

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying

Agreed. Allowing a fundamentalist state like Israel to control nuclear weapons would only further destabilize the region for generations to come. And the fact that the Jewish hawks in the Israeli Parliament are backed by even crazier Christian fundies in the states (who have interpreted nuclear war as practically spelled out in religious scripture) should leave every Middle Eastern citizen dreading a nuclear state.

Oh wait, there's more.

, and that is what is happening in Iran.”

Oh. Ooooooooh. Ok, that's different.

[Louis Wranton]

It's really a shame that you leftist hacks weren't satisfied with your pacifism costing ONE Holocaust and now you need another to see how stupid and dangerous your ignorance is. You people sicken me to no end.

[Ron Beasley]

Bibi may not realize it but Cheney and Rumsfeld are no longer in charge. APIC still has a lot of power in Washington but not as much as it did even a few months ago. Obama needs to tell Netanyahu in no uncertain terms that an Israeli attack on Iran is not in the best interest of the US and that should they try their planes will be turned back or shot down.

[tas]

Ahh yes, liberals caused the first Holocaust. We're just guilty of everything. Keep keepin' it stupid, Louis.

As for Bibi.. Is this a bluff? I'm reminded of a talk by a terrorism professor from the University of Haifa I attended earlier this year. This professor also happened to be a major in the IDF too; so he was an Israeli hawk. His talk was about Gaza, but he was candid about other topics while talking with students after the speech. Naturally, Iran came up. In his view -- and we can consider this the Israeli hawk view, which is what got Netanyahu elected -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that's the end of Israel. Period.

I know we might not regard this as logical, but it's not our job to point out logic. I'm just stating fact.

So is Netanyahu bluffing? There's a distinct possibility that he's not. If Israel considers the stakes high enough -- and they're always incredibly sensitive about what the stakes are, as demonstrated in the recent Gaza Crisis prompted by ill-guided rockets which hardly cause damage (not defending them; again, just stating fact) -- they will launch air raids on Iran.

As for the feasibility of those raids, if they happen, that's the test for Obama. (Another mess left for him from Bush, but that's different story.) Israel could choose to fly 500-700 jets over Iraq to get to Iran. Should they do such, would the US respond by launching a massive attack to protect Iran?

But if Obama kowtows to Netanyahu, he risks inflaming more conflict among Middle Eastern countries angered by Netanyahu's actions.

Akin to the ultimatum Obama just gave big auto, Netanyahu just served a warning to Obama. This is pretty much the definition of not good.

[Louis Wranton]

Denying evil did cause the Holocaust yes. The belief that problems could be talked and negotiated away instead of dealt with with force. Is that not liberal foreign policy to a T?

[geoff]

Sorry, i'm, as usual a bit late to this interesting sniping. Now I think Israel has morphed into an "evil" state. Of course I also don't believe in "evil" and an "evil" state thus seems to me silly? So I likely shouldn't be taken very seriously, but any group oppressing another makes my quite limited, and confused mind wonder. See, I get angry over real and present - that means now - awfulness, history can look after itself, so Israeli policy concerns me because it seems awful and an insult to those killed between '33 and '45 who where Jewish. I'll not apologize for anything my ancestors have done but I will promise not to repeat any awfulness they did. But I'll not sit quitely for any awfulness by any group, country, people, etc. etc. now either.

[B Ooji]

Netanyahu is just taking Ahmadinejad at is word ...

Remember the "Israel must be wiped off the map" comments, the letter to Germany's Merkel saying "The holocaust was invented to embarrass you so let's take care of zionism together", the "world without Zionism" campaign etc. etc.

[Steve Hynd]

B Ooji,

1) that "wiped off the map" stuff has been very well debunked. The correct translation is "will disappear from the map" i.e. of its own accord due to its nature as an apartheid state.

2) Zionism is not the same as Israel.

3) Ahmen-nutjob has some kookie ideas about the Holocaust. So? He's not supreme leader, not in charge of Iran's nuclear program and not the Deciderer on who Iran goes to war with. Netan-yahoo would do better to take the real guy in charge at his word - which is a statement saying nukes are against the Koran and Iran doesn't want them.

Regards, Steve

[Andy]

US airplanes patrol Turkish airspace? The IAEA is in total agreement with the 2007 NIE? Really?

Steve, your posts would have a lot more credibility if you simply did some basic research before making dubious declarations of fact.

[Steve Hynd]

Hi Andy,

May, 2008: "We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," - ElBaradei.

US warplanes, and those from other NATO nations, constantly stage out of the joint US/Turkish airbase at Incirlik and the related base and range at Konya on live-fire exercises or in support of ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But you're simply nitpicking on this one - the more important point that Turkey is a NATO/US ally wasn't in parentheses.

Again, your ascerbic tone fails to impress.

Regards, Steve

[Steve Hynd]

NY Times, Dec 4 2007:

In Vienna, the American intelligence finding was embraced by the International Atomic Energy Agency as proof that its conclusions about Iran’s nuclear program were correct.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog agency, is seeking to resolve questions about Iran’s suspicious activities in the past, but has been criticized for not pressing Iran hard enough on curbing its current nuclear program and for conducting diplomacy that seemed at odds with Security Council strategy.

“Despite repeated smear campaigns, the I.A.E.A. has stood its ground and concluded time and again that since 2002 there was no evidence of an undeclared nuclear weapons program in Iran,” a senior agency official said. “It also validates the assessment of the director general that what the I.A.E.A. inspectors have seen in Iran represented no imminent danger.”

As the report was being released in Washington, the American mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency sent nuclear experts to the agency to brief officials on it.

Gregory L. Schulte, the American envoy to the agency, telephoned Dr. ElBaradei, who was traveling in Uruguay, and told him that the American assessment is “close to what you’ve been saying,” the agency official said.

Regards, Steve