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 ...

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:
/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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share