Right Web

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

Will Israeli Dissent Halt the March towards War?

Tensions have been reaching near fevered pitch over Iran’s nuclear program as Israeli leaders and their supporters in the United States have pressed for military action to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. However, a number of factors have been working against the hawks, including recent progress at the P5+1 talks and the lack of enthusiasm for another conflict among a war-weary U.S. public. In recent weeks, a new force has emerged that seems to have made the threat of war even less imminent—the unprecedented wave of dissent from current and former top Israeli officials.

The threat of a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities this year appears to have substantially subsided over the past several weeks as a result of several developments, including the biting criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak voiced recently by former top national security officials.

The possibility of war seems significantly more remote than it did during the winter months, when tensions reached an all-time high. The New York Times even recently ran a front-page feature entitled “Experts Believe Iran Conflict is Less Likely.”

Judging by actual bets placed on the online trading exchange Intrade, experts believe the chances that the United States or Israel will actually launch air strikes against Iran before the end of the year have fallen by more than half since the high reached in mid-February—from just over 60 percent to about 28 percent as of early May.

That's still a substantial percentage—about twice what it was before the latest round of Israeli saber-rattling began in November.

It's difficult to find any close observer who believes that war clouds could not suddenly reappear, particularly if the next meeting of the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) with Iran scheduled for May 23 in Baghdad should break down or be delayed.

For its part, the Barack Obama administration has shown little inclination to reduce pressure—and the threat of military action—on Tehran.

Not only has it moved more minesweepers and F-15 fighter jets into the Gulf region, but the air force also announced recently that it has deployed an undisclosed number of advanced F-22 stealth fighter-bombers to the area, specifically to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), according to the industry publication Aviation Week.

Diplomatic Inroads and Changing Politics

Despite those moves, fears of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran this year have clearly receded, especially since all sides left the April P5+1 meeting in Istanbul seemingly satisfied with the seriousness of the exchanges and guardedly optimistic that a diplomatic solution could yet be achieved.

The meeting's success was made possible by readiness on both sides to make concessions on key issues: on Tehran's part, by stating explicitly that it could halt its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, transfer its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium out of the country, and accept greater scrutiny by international weapons inspectors under the right circumstances; on Washington's, by stating more clearly than ever that it could accept Iran's continued uranium enrichment of up to 5 percent under the right circumstances.

Whether the "right circumstances" can be accommodated by all sides, of course, will determine the ultimate success or failure of the negotiations.

Meanwhile, however, the U.S. and Israeli hawks who have been most disdainful of the diplomatic route—and most insistent that only military action can dispose of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program—have found themselves increasingly on the defensive since tensions reached a peak in early March.

It was then that Obama declared at the annual convention of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that "the loose talk of war" by Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich was dangerous and counterproductive.

At the time, AIPAC was pressing Congress for quick passage of both a new round of unilateral sanctions against Iran and a Senate resolution that would define Tehran's development of a "nuclear-weapons capability" as the U.S. "red line" for taking military action, rather than the administration's trigger, which has been Iran’s development of an actual nuclear weapon.

"Once the president put the argument about the 'loose talk of war,' the momentum shifted quite dramatically," said Jamal Abdi, policy director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). He noted that Democrats who had previously bowed to AIPAC's hawkish line have since become more deferential to the White House.

One token of the change was a recent anti-war ad run by former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion 10 years ago who is now running to reclaim his old seat. In it, he warned that a war against Iran would make "Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cakewalk."

"It's a much different debate now," Abdi told Inter Press Service. "It's now 'diplomacy versus war,' not 'war now or later.'" While sanctions legislation is still pending, he said, "There doesn't seem to be much of a push to get it done, at least before the Baghdad meeting anyway. Congress is in a kind of 'wait-and-see' mode."

Ironically, the hawks have also been set back by the intensifying appeals by neoconservatives for Washington to intervene militarily in Syria.

Not only has that debate diverted time and energy that many of the fiercest hawks would otherwise devote to Iran. It has also exposed divides, similar to those that surfaced last year over the intervention in Libya, between interventionists on one hand and realists and libertarians on the other within the Republican Party.

"Talking about war with Iran at the same time that you want us to get involved in a civil war in Syria is not a popular message this year," according to one congressional staffer who cited recent public opinion polls suggesting that Republicans have become almost as war-weary as Democrats. "Given Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, it's a bit much."

Israeli Dissent

Similarly, the unprecedented public criticism of Netanyahu and Barak by former senior Israeli national security officials has given new ammunition to those who favor diplomacy.

In recent weeks, the former head of Israel's Mossad spy agency, Meir Dagan, reiterated his long-held views that an Israeli attack on Iran would be "stupid" on the most-watched U.S. public affairs television program, 60 Minutes.

His successor and current Mossad head, Tamir Pardo, subsequently publicly questioned whether an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an "existential" threat to Israel, as repeatedly alleged by Netanyahu.

Additionally, the head of the Israel Defense Forces, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, asserted that Iranian leaders, contrary to Netanyahu's views, were "very rational" and were likely to stop short of developing a nuclear weapon.

But perhaps the most damaging attack to date came when Yuval Diskin, the previous chief of Israel's domestic intelligence agency, denounced both Netanyahu and Barak as acting out of "messianic feelings," predicting that an Israeli attack would likely accelerate Tehran's nuclear program.

"I saw them up close, they are not messiahs," he said. "My main problem on this issue is that I don't have confidence in the current leadership of the State of Israel—[they] could lead Israel into something of the order of magnitude of a war with Iran or a regional war."

Diskin's remarks, which were defended by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Gantz's predecessor, retired Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, at a rancorous conference in New York, will almost certainly give pause to Netanyahu—who, despite his messianism, is also famously risk-averse, according to former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy.

"He knows that if anything goes wrong [in an attack on Iran], there are very well-respected non-political Israeli figures who will be there to ferociously attack him," Levy said, adding that Netanyahu will likely call an election for September or October in the coming weeks.

"That makes the relative unlikelihood of a strike in 2012 even less likely," he told IPS.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web. He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

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.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

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.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share