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

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share