Foreign Policy In Focus

Cross-posted from Mondoweiss.

Part of me very much wishes to believe this is all a viral marketing effort leading to a forthcoming episode of Portlandia where they go to Israel. It is almost that surreal, but in a somewhat entertaining manner.

Shurat HaDin -- an Israeli "lawfare" group that set up legal roadblock after roadblock against "Gaza Freedom Flotilla II" last year -- has for several years offered tours of Israel that take in the sort of sights a military fanboy would love, from Hezbollah watching on the Lebanese border to visiting the IAF units that carry out targeted killings and viewing military trials of alleged Hamas operatives (that was part of the 2011 trip). Also, there is a BBQ. The one-week trip costs around US$3,000 and is billed as "Taking it to a Whole New Level," "The Ultimate Mission to Israel".

No argument here.

As a sometimes-national security blogger, I'd be lying if I didn't say I was curious about this sort of combat voyeurism and how it might speak volumes about the further militarization of Israeli society, though a friend's perhaps uncharitable assessment is that most of the people who do go on these trips are not Israelis, but IDF fanboys from the U.S. (the works of Tom Clancy were mentioned in passing in the discussion). In that case, these trips say more about the way the IDF is perceived in both countries than anything else.

Here's this year's agenda. As you can see from the screenshot, I mentioned the Gaza flotilla to start with not just because it's Shurat HaDin's claim to fame in the U.S. media (its charity work in Israel and lawsuits against terrorist financiers not being well-known outside of the country) but because, apparently, one of this year's highlights is a trip to the undisclosed naval base where the Israeli navy is holding flotilla ships it's impounded. It's not clear which ships they're referring to, but since only a single ship from the 2011 effort reached Gazan waters, I imagine they are also referring to ships from the 2010 effort. 

I guess it's really only fair that the lawfare group be allowed to tour these prizes -- the navy might have actually boarded and impounded the ships in both cases, but Shurat HaDin made their job so much easier the second time through its pressure campaign against the organizers and the Greek government. With one exception, a French boat, none of the second flotilla's ships made it further than Greek territorial waters.

I imagine anyone who might be linked to the IAEA is not allowed to go any further than the gift shop when the group makes a stop at the Research Center for Atomic Energy (do you think one can buy plausible-deniability Jericho missile keychains there?). I'd have to say that this year's most questionable whistlestop for Shurat HaDin is the opportunity for ticket holders to visit a Druze village that has apparently become home to a number of refugees fleeing Syria's nascent civil war. With several Syria events planned for the trip, apparently, I guess there is not much concern over that conflict escalating in the Golan Heights area.

You all probably think I'm appalled with many aspects of this itinerary -- no, not the BBQ, obviously, the gawking at refugees, yes -- yet I must look for the silver lining, and to me that silver lining is the timing of the summer's venue, July 9-16.

Why is this cause for cautious optimism? Because some informed comment has determined that if Israel is going to attack Iran this year, it will almost certainly be before the end of this summer. Surely this indicates that war with Iran is unlikely in the tour organizers' minds who, based on where they're getting to go, must have their fingers on the pulse of the security forces (who are generally not as sanguine about the prospect of war with Iran as Ehud Barak appears to be). 

And while Netanyahu might be an overly rude guest -- just ask Obama -- he does not seem to be an overly rude host (he hasn't expelled Gideon Levy or the Arab minority yet). Surely, he would not risk waging war with Iran and inconveniencing Israel's most gung-ho tourists?

"An attack on Iran could take place within a matter of months, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a series of television interviews on Thursday," reported Haaretz on Friday (March 9).

"We're not standing with a stopwatch in hand," he said. "It's not a matter of days or weeks, but also not of years. The result must be removal of the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran's hands."

It's not unlike the famous Doomsday Clock, which the publication Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists maintains -- now at five minutes to midnight. For its part, Iran can be forgiven if the difference between an ultimatum and a dire threat is lost on it.

Speaking of speaking frankly, no one is doing a better job of it better than T.J. Hammes of the National Defense University, who recently wrote (emphasis added):

The current debate on whether or not to bomb Iran is being framed as a false choice. Proponents state we must bomb Iran to keep it from developing a nuclear weapon. Yet in the same statement they often admit that even an effective bombing campaign will delay the program only a few years. Thus, the real choice being offered is not to bomb Iran or face an Iran with nuclear weapons. The real choice is facing an Iran with nuclear weapons or facing an Iran with nuclear weapons after you have bombed it.

Futility -- thy name is bombing Iran.

Thirty years ago, the Reagan Administration went on a crash program to increase the U.S. military budget, cut social programs, escalate the nuclear arms race to a degree unprecedented during the Cold War (1945-1989) and revive U.S. interventionalism in the Third World.

Looking back, it’s not hard to discern the Reagan Strategy:

• most of all -- either fabricate or greatly exaggerate 'the threat', giving the impression that 'the end of the world' is at hand through nuclear holocaust

• surround the Soviet Union with U.S. bases, with sea-based Trident submarines, a single sub armed with possibly 154 nuclear warheads

• impose an economic embargo and engage in counterinsurgency

• construct an anti-communist alliance (NATO)

• use the nuclear arms race to push the Soviet Union to the limit, making it difficult for the communist government to both re-tool its economy and keep up with military expenditures at the same time 

It worked.

Understanding that the USSR could not participate in an arms race and reform its economic and political structures at the same time, Mikael Gorbachev tried to reduce global tensions to reshape  his country economically. But it was too little too late -- the USSR had long before lost its moral compass; its economy was so hopelessly grid-locked that reform proved impossible. The whole structure collapsed, with the World Bank and IMF finishing off what remained of Soviet Communism with their punishing structural adjustment programs in exchange for financial aid.

Fast forward to today.

A similar political witches' brew, with slight modifications, is being concocted to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran one way or another by both the USA and Israel. The exaggerated threat, the vilification of the Iranian leadership, the economic boycott, the ring of military bases surrounding Iran combined with the presence of a naval armada in the Persian Gulf all follow the Reagan prescription for triggering Soviet collapse. The much-inflated Soviet threat has been replaced by the much inflated Iranian threat; the anti-Iranian coalition has replaced the anti-Communist crusade. Add to that the new, often insidious role of NGOs and special forces operations and the more modern-day version of 'regime change,' i.e., overthrowing governments, comes into focus.

These last months both the United States and Israel have ratcheted up the anti-Iranian rhetoric to an unprecedented level reaching a new crescendo of hysteria in Netanyahu’s March 5, 2012 speech before AIPAC. The Obama and Netanyahu administrations have painted Iran with such dark colors that should they want to change gears and NOT attack Iran, they would have difficulty explaining it to their peoples who have been worked into a frenzy; it is reminiscent of the media build up preceding the March 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq, or as one colleague compared put it -- the period just before the outbreak of World War One.

With an election around the corner,  Barack Obama is trying to cool down the flames and put the brakes on the very sentiment his administration has helped unleash. ”Too much war talk,”  the president told a meeting of AIPAC, that powerful and reactionary pro-Israeli lobbying group a few days ago! Unfortunately, that message was embedded in an otherwise groveling-to-AIPAC, militaristic series of remarks about Iran which watered down Obama’s 'message of peace.'

Cut out the war talk?

It suggests that the Obama Administration does not want to attack Iran, and does not want Israel to do so... for now, at least until after the elections.

But if Obama and his defense secretary, Leon Panetta, are saying this is not the time for an invasion, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu along with the Republican Party presidential candidates, neo-conservatives, Zionist organizations in the USA like AIPAC , the Looney Tunes Christian Zionists like Hagee and his band of 'end-of-the-worlders' are all pushing hard for military intervention.

Do they mean it? Is it not, as Colorado peace activist Arnie Carter suggested 'just plain nuts' to engage Iran militarily?

What is crystal clear is that for different reasons, both the United States and Israel are doing their utmost to overthrow the Islamic Republic. The means by which they hope to accomplish this is more a tactical than a strategic question at this point. But the indications are growing that any planned major military action -- if it indeed takes place -- will be put on hold until after the November 2012 U.S. presidential elections. Unleashing a war against Iran now with all its possible complications could cost Obama the elections and he will do what he can to avoid it.

Obama’s caution on attacking Iran is clashing with Netanyahu and American Republican presidential hopeful’s recklessness. Netanhayu and the Republicans are using the increased Iran war talk to pressure Obama.

What is going on here?

As stated in Part One, we believe Netanyahu is talking tough on Iran in an effort both to weaken Obama’s chances for a second term and to press the President for major concessions on the Palestinian issue (more settlements, complete annexation of Jerusalem, even greater integration into US strategic operations in the region).

As for the Republicans, throughout the primary campaign, other than attacking each other, the main candidates have failed to come up with an issue to get traction against Obama.

Attacking Charles Darwin just didn’t fly; not even the abortion issue is getting the attention it used to. Balancing the budget on the backs of the unemployed, working class and middle classes while cutting taxes for the rich does not seem to have the appeal it used to either.

Now the Republicans think they have come up with the answer: using the Iran issue to create global jitters which push up oil prices which in turn, among other things, threatens the weak economic recovery here in the United States. This could not only hurt the fragile U.S. economy but undermine the weak global recovery. Having contributed in large measure to the oil jitters and understanding well its consequences, then they attack Obama for the economic slowdown. Nice!

Openly nervous, Obama made reference to the spike in oil prices in his AIPAC talk and called for a toning down of the rhetoric. In an effort to drive oil prices back down again he has continued since his AIPAC speech to publicly challenge the Republican hopefuls on Iran, calling their tough talk bluff. Obama and his coterie have responded to their offensive by arguing that the sanctions against Iran are working.

The rational case against a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran has been repeatedly stated¹ (see end note 1).

There is now another consideration that enters the picture, the Syria crisis, which Obama is also using as a pretext for not attacking Iran. Regardless of outcome of the present crisis there, the Syrian regime will be weaker and accordingly, its regional coalition with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas somewhat diminished in strength, placing Iran in a more difficult, weaker position vis a vis  the U.S. and Israel. Iran will be more isolated -- it is only a question of how much more. Hamas has already jumped ship (with promises of Saudi and Qatari money?) from the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. Attacking Iran at this moment (or a Libyan NATO-like invasion of Syria) could only bring together and unify what is an increasingly less potent Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah alliance.

But if the timing is not right for a U.S. and/or Israeli attack on Iran, will the plans for military intervention turns to Syria?      

End note:

1.1. It would probably further strengthen the authority and position of the mullahs, uniting the Iranian nation against the outside aggressor (as the threats have already done) and weakening the democratic movement in the country considerably.

2. There is nothing to indicate that invading Iran – whatever shape the military action might take – would result in the collapse of the government there as it did in Iraq in 2003. Without overstating the case – the 2009 protests revealed deep fissures within the country – still, the current government in Iran has considerable mass support. It is easy to forget one of the worst wars of the 20th century – the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988 when Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger and the like argued that supporting Iraq would result in the collapse of the Iranian regime. Didn’t happen then; won’t now either.

3. If war did break out, it would probably not be as one-sided as the U.S. led 2003 Iraq invasion where the Iraqi military all but collapsed. Iran is in a position to hurt the U.S. and its closest allies in the region militarily and politically. A 'shock and awe’ type military offensive would cause great suffering in the country, but it is doubtful such a campaign would either bring down the regime, or for that matter, eliminate its potential to strike back militarily and politically.

4. Although rarely discussed, the U.S. actually needs (and cooperates with) Iran for stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Any U.S. military operation against Iran would seriously undermine the U.S. position, already quite tenuous, in these two countries. The U.S. military is obviously much stronger, but in any war, you can expect that there will be serious U.S. casualties with the naval fleet in the Gulf being essentially sitting ducks. Then there are the Saudi (and Kuwaiti and Emirates) oil fields. One has to be either pretty stupid or blinded by arrogance to believe the strategic resources the U.S. military is in the Middle East to protect, would not be hit in the event of war.

5. An attack on Iran – or some kind of regional military confrontation involving Iran, Israel, the US and other regional players – would almost certainly lead to a spiking in the world price of crude oil, something which could easily cause the current very weak global economic recovery to collapse. Such price increases would seriously undermine both the European and East Asian economies that are more reliant on Gulf oil than the USA.

Also read Part One.

Ibrahim Kazerooni is finishing a joint Ph.D. program at the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Denver's Korbel School of International Studies in Denver. More of his work can be found at the Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni Blog. Rob Prince is a Lecturer of International Studies at the University of Denver's Korbel School of International Studies and publisher of the Colorado Progressive Jewish News.

In politics, a "gaffe" is a politically inconvenient truth. The first George Bush committed a gaffe when he said that the idea that cutting taxes would increase government revenue was "voodoo economics." Similarly, it was a gaffe when Barack Obama said that insecure right-wingers "cling" to religion and guns.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak gaffed big-time last November. This gaffe is even more colossal than what he said back in 1999 that if he were a stateless young Palestinian, he would "have joined one of the terror organizations."

Barak's November 2011 remark is breathtaking in both its honesty and in its deviation from the Israeli government line (Iran being an existential threat to Israel, Europe and the rest of the world) that has not only been sold to the Israeli people, but also to the United States government -- especially to Congress, where anything from Netanyahu's office is treated as gospel.

Appearing on PBS' Charlie Rose, Barak was asked if he would want nuclear weapons if he were an Iranian government minister. He said he probably would.

BARAK: Probably, probably. I know it's not -- I mean I don't delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They look around, they see the Indians are nuclear, the Chinese are nuclear, Pakistan is nuclear, not to mention the Russians.

Barak did not "delude" himself with the belief that Iran's nuclear weapon program is "just because of Israel." Well, it's always nice to be true to yourself. After the Israeli right went ballistic over Barak's remarks, he qualified them, but in such a half-hearted way that it is clear what he said on PBS is what he believes.

Barak is not the only leading Israeli leader that has spoken the truth.

Meir Dagan, the recently retired Mossad chief, called bombing Iran a "stupid idea." He said: "A military attack will give the Iranians the best excuse to pursue the nuclear race. Khamenei will say 'I was attacked by a country with nuclear capabilities; my nuclear program was peaceful, but I must protect my country.'"

Of course, Barak and Netanyahu and a host of officials in successive Israeli governments for the past 15 years have sold the entire world on the idea that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for the purpose of destroying Israel. Repeatedly, Israeli officials have said that the Iranian government is insane with anti-Semitism, so insane that it would joyfully nuke Israel without any regard for the fact that Israel has 200 land, air and sea-based missiles that could kill millions.

Among the leading advocates for "crippling sanctions" against Iran and for keeping the "bomb Iran" option "on the table" are the right-wing "pro-Israel" organizations led by AIPAC, its congressional cutouts, and, in the blogosphere, Commentary, which is central command headquarters for the "Bomb Iran" movement.

With one honest comment, Barak demonstrated that the hysteria surrounding an Iranian bomb is, in fact, not about an "existential threat" to Israel, but about the fact that: Israelis don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon because, if it does, Israel will not be free to continue its role as regional hegemon and to do whatever it wants in the Middle East. It will change the balance of power in the region. 

Disregarding the Israelis publically stated reasons for attacking Iran, one needs to ask the question: why the saber-rattling? We believe that part of the answer lies in the unstated circumstantial factors.

In about nine months, the US will hold a presidential election. All the noise about striking Iran could have more to do with American domestic politics than any real or perceived threat to the Israelis.

It is no secret that the right-wing government in Israel in general, and Netanyahu in particular, would prefer a new US president in January 2013. This is not simply because Netanyahu had some tense moments with Obama, but also because in a second term Obama would not face the type of electoral constraints he faces in his first term.

It is no secret that US presidents who have engaged in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking have been most active in their second terms as Bill Clinton was at Camp David and George W. Bush was in Annapolis. Those that were particularly active in their first terms -- Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush -- were defeated in their re-election bids. Netanyahu does not want an unrestrained Obama demanding that he halt settlement expansion in 2013. Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich is more likely to be more susceptible to the pro-Israel pressures AIPAC is apt to apply.

Netanyahu also knows that if Israel went ahead and attacked Iran on its own before the election, he would put Obama in an extremely compromising position. Obama does not want to get into a war with Iran as it is against American interests. But Obama also knows that should Israel go it alone, he'd be pressured to participate lest he appear weak before the electorate.

The specter of an Israeli strike on Iran will have Obama asking Netanyahu what he can do to change Netanyahu's mind and put off the strike to say, at least after November. (Remember Golda Meir’s threat of bombing Cairo with nuclear weapons in October 1973 war?) Netanyahu's government has a great deal to gain from hanging the possibility of a unilateral strike ominously over the head of President Obama before an election.

Israel is hedging its bets for November in the hopes that they will either get a first-term Republican facing domestic constraints that prevent him from pressuring Israel, or a docile Obama, who has already given away the house on Jerusalem and settlements.

Did Netanyahu ask for specific guarantees, similar to the ones George W Bush made, which Obama does not recognize, about Israel's retention of major settlement blocs in any deal with the Palestinians? Did he ask for guarantees about the future of Jerusalem, which he wants to keep in violation of international law, and the Jordan Valley in the West Bank, over which he seeks to maintain a long-term military presence, rendering a would-be Palestinian state dead on arrival?

Ibrahim Kazerooni is finishing a joint Ph.D. program at the Iliff School of Theology and the University of Denver's Korbel School of International Studies in Denver. More of his work can be found at the Imam Ibrahim Kazerooni Blog. Rob Prince is a Lecturer of International Studies at the University of Denver's Korbel School of International Studies and publisher of the Colorado Progressive Jewish News.

"American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by" not only firing missiles at Israel, but, write Thom Shanker, Helene Cooper, and Ethan Bronner in a New York Times articles titled U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes, "terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas."

Gen. James E. Cartwright, former commander of U.S. Strategic Command (which includes nuclear weapons) told the authors:

The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control. … The balance [they] will try to strike is doing damage that is sufficiently significant, but just short of what it would take for America to invade.

Still, the attacks, "General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces."

Sounds familiar, right? Yes, but usually those are Iran's presumed responses to an American attack. Now we're told that even if the United States sat out an Israeli attack on Iran, it would still be the object of retaliation. Obviously, because of the military aid it gives Israel, the United States is complicit -- would that be Iran's reasoning? Or would Iran hold the United States responsible for not making more of an effort to stay Iran's hand? Here's the only light that the authors have to shed on this (emphasis added):

… administration, military and intelligence officials say Iran would most likely choose anonymous, indirect attacks against nations it views as supporting Israeli policy, in the hope of offering Tehran at least public deniability.

If this is the case, Iran would be guilty of a lack of foresight. If the United States figures it will be attacked, what then is to stop it from joining in the initial attack on Iran? In an ideal world, of course, the United States could try harder to convince Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when President Obama meets with him Monday (March 5) at the White House.

After all, as Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who participated in a Brookings Institution simulation of an Israeli attack on Iran told the authors, "as for long-term consequences, it's way too murky to say anything but this: It will be ugly."