Israel and Iran: Washington’s Changed Security Posture

Iran is pushing ahead with its covert nuclear weapons program while Israel bangs its head against a wall because of a change in Washington’s security posture that is already taking place.

Hilary Clinton’s so far informal offer of a security, including nuclear, umbrella, to its friends in the Middle East is an admission that Washington is unsure of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Clinton and President Barack Obama think the only practicable path to contain Iran is through collective security and traditional deterrence, based on a credible threat of annihilation.

Israel continues its implicit threat to conduct a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if future American talks with Teheran do not end quickly, such as late September or December 2009 at the most. But the threat is either rhetoric or wishful thinking because an Israeli strike cannot succeed without substantial American help.

Obama cannot provide that help even if he had the best of will because it would put too many American lives at risk. Iran has more than enough missiles to harm the nearly 200,000 American and 60,000 Western troops within easy reach in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It may not attack Americans directly to avoid an all-out war but it will certainly try to kill the people of countries friendly to the US. The pressure on Washington to leave the region entirely would become unstoppable. None of America’s friends cares enough for Israel’s security to sacrifice its own people to Iranian missiles.

Obama’s apparent tilt towards containment of Iran through deterrence is thoroughly repugnant but it is the only usable option. Draconian sanctions remain doable but making them effective requires the cooperation of too many countries, each of which has a different national agenda in relations with Teheran.

Even the Gulf Arabs, who have feared and distrusted Shia Teheran for centuries, are unlikely to impose sanctions without numerous leaks because none is willing to worsen enmity with Iran. Each also has a large and potentially disruptive Shia minority.

If Israel decides to attack Iran without Washington’s support, it may gain little more than 10 years of safety. It will need bunker buster bombs with a neutron-based radioactive component available only from the US. If it has secretly built its own bombs, the region’s Arabs will start to fear Israel much more than Iran because of open use of radioactive weapons by a local power.

An Islamic nuclear weapon will surely emerge somewhere in the region pointed at Israel. The US will not be able to prevent this because no country in the region will believe that Washington has influence over Tel Aviv’s military decisions.

Without minimizing the existential threat to Israel from Iran, the wiser course at this time may be to do nothing against Teheran. Patience together with some kind of defense umbrella and collective deterrence are the right things for the moment.

One reason is the tremendous political confusion in Teheran, which is weakening the current Israel-hating theocracy. Teheran is still three to five years away from its bomb. Much could happen within Iran during that time to change the regime’s nature.

We may never get a trustworthy democratic regime in Teheran. But we may get one that sees no benefit in acquiring nuclear weapons. This is no longer a completely unrealistic hope.

In any case, right now even trying to talk to Iran is useless because there is no reliable interlocutor. A spontaneous regime change in Teheran combined with a clear wall of deterrence may cause the new regime, whether mullahs or a military dictatorship, to renounce nuclear weapons.

At this time, it is better to protect and strengthen the opposition movements within Iran than to threaten war or punitive sanctions that may cause the people to turn towards patriotism and nationalism. Those would help the mullahs instead of helping the people to become freer.