Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

“We Will Attack It”

As Israel’s transportation minister, one might have expected that Shaul Mofaz would have given greater consideration to the impact his comments would have on the ...

Print Friendly

As Israel’s transportation minister, one might have expected that Shaul Mofaz would have given greater consideration to the impact his comments would have on the already galloping price of a barrel of crude oil. Maybe he did. But with the scent of elections in the air in Israel, the international ramifications of his comments were apparently not uppermost on his mind. Far more narrow political calculations clearly were.

In the shrillest comments yet by an Israeli leader on Iran’s nuclear program, Mofaz told the weekend edition of Israel’s top-selling Yediot Ahronoth newspaper that "if Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it.

"The sanctions are not effective," he continued. "There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear program."

The remarks by Mofaz, who is a former army chief, had an immediate impact on oil prices, sending the cost of a barrel soaring 9 percent to an all-time high of $139.

Mofaz’s remarks drew international criticism. Even the United States, Israel’s major ally, reacted with circumspection. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that while the United States understood that Israel was "very concerned about their future and their safety when they have a neighbor in their region—Iran—that says they want to wipe them off the map," the Bush administration was "trying to solve this diplomatically."

In Israel, the criticism was far less muted. Political leaders and defense officials slammed Mofaz, accusing him of harming Israel’s strategic interests and of being motivated by personal political goals. "Turning one of the most strategic security issues into a political game, using it for the internal purposes of a would-be campaign in Kadima, is something that must not be done," Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai told Israel Radio.

With Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under intense pressure to stand down in the face of corruption charges, the ruling Kadima Party is considering holding primaries to choose a new leader, and Mofaz is considered one of the front runners. In Israel, his comments were seen in this context—as an attempt to paint himself as tough on security as he gears up for a leadership battle in Kadima ahead of a possible national election later this year.

Just days before his Iran outburst, Mofaz took a hardline view on peace with Syria, declaring that he opposed ceding the Golan Heights, which were captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, in exchange for a comprehensive peace treaty with Damascus. Syria could not be trusted, he said, and giving back the Golan would amount to having Iran, Syria’s strategic ally, on Israel’s border.

Just three weeks ago, Olmert announced that Israel and Syria were renewing peace talks after an eight-year hiatus. In recent months, the Israeli prime minister has also said that he believed Iran would not gain nuclear capability, and he has intimated that diplomatic efforts could ultimately prevent it from doing so.

While Israeli leaders have never dismissed the military option with regard to Iran, their references to the use of force have generally been oblique. The remarks by Mofaz, who was born in Iran and came to Israel as a young boy, sparked strong reaction not just because of their strident nature, but also because he is a former chief of staff and former defense minister and is currently a member of the security cabinet, which makes him privy to highly sensitive defense information. What’s more, he is in charge of Israel’s strategic dialogue with the United States, which means he has been at the center of discussions between the government and the Bush administration on Iran.

Government officials, speaking anonymously, said Mofaz’s threats did not reflect official Israeli policy. Angry defense officials said his remarks could make it even more difficult for Israel to convince more countries to ratchet up sanctions against Iran. Both Israel and the United States believe Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed solely at producing civil nuclear power.

With the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities having become increasingly remote, many believe this reduces the chances that Israel will go it alone and launch an attack. Iran’s nuclear facilities are well protected and spread out across the country, which raises questions about Israel’s ability to launch without the United States an effective strike that could severely damage Iran’s nuclear program.

But Israel has gone it alone in the past. In 1981, Israeli planes destroyed a nuclear reactor that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had built in Osirak. Just nine months ago, Israel bombed and destroyed a target in Syria that the United States said was a nuclear facility.

For Mofaz, the immediate target is the party leadership. But rather than portraying himself as Mr. Security, he might have ended up painting himself as an irresponsible leader who exploits sensitive strategic issues for narrow political gain.

Writing in the daily Haaretz newspaper, political analyst Yossi Verter said that Mofaz’s comments had "single-handedly caused the sharpest one-day increase in history in the price of a barrel of crude: 11 dollars. On one hand, that is impressive productivity; on the other, it is scary. What is he planning for us during the real campaign? A world war? A clash of Titans?"

Peter Hirschberg writes for the Inter Press Service.

Citations

Peter Hirschberg, “We Will Attack It”, Right Web, with permission from The Forward (Somerville, MA: PRA, 2008). Web location:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4923.html Production Information:
Author(s): Right Web
Editor(s): Right Web
Production: Political Research Associates   Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: IRC editors read and approve eachcomment. Comments are checked for content and to a lesser degree forspelling and grammatical errors. Comments that include vulgar language andlibelous content are rejected, as are comments that do not directlyrespond to the published IRC article.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share