Herbert London on downgrading Israel won't stop Iran's nuclear ambitions
By: Herbert London
OpEd Contributor
July 2, 2009
Based on hints, feints, public pronouncements, and off-the-record commentary, the Obama administration's stance toward Iran is in focus: The U.S. will do nothing to prevent the further enrichment of uranium by Iran's mullahs.
The negotiations with Iran are based on the premise that Iran can produce as much enriched uranium as it wants as long as a nuclear bomb isn't manufactured. In other words, the conditions for a bomb without actually making one.
This is a distinction without a difference -- the bomb can be made in days if deployment is in the cards. If Obama can get the Iranians to agree to this arrangement with adequate blandishments provided by our side, such as the lifting of sanctions, he will announce that "peace" between Iran and the West has been achieved.
It will be seen as a significant diplomatic breakthrough. For keen observers, however, it will be regarded as a Munich peace.
In order to play down the threat to Israel's survival, Obama will argue that the United States stands committed to employ its nuclear umbrella to protect Israel against nuclear attack. Although this offer will be made with apparent sincerity, it is hard to believe that Obama would be willing to risk the safety of New York in order to protect Tel Aviv. Moreover, it is also hard to believe any serious official in Israel will accept this proposal, albeit other options may not be available.
The Obama administration has made it clear that it will punish Israel if it attacks Iran unilaterally. Having failed to contain Iran, the United States is concentrating on restraining Israel. Administration contingency plans include a formal condemnation of Israel, support for a United Nations Security Council resolution that could include sanctions against it, and suspending military aid to the Jewish state.
The big question is what the Obama administration will do if Israel, determining that Iran with the capacity to build nuclear weapons is an existential threat, attacks Iran. Moreover, Iran would retaliate against Israel in addition to possibly shutting down the 29-mile wide Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world's crude oil is transported.
How will President Obama react? Would the U.S. fight back, or would it blame Israel for the preemptive attack on Iran, appealing to the "Muslim world" for understanding?
Decades of appeasement and accommodations have led to the present impasse. These policy blunders cannot be solely attributed to Obama. In fact, blame belongs on both sides of the political aisle.
What distinguishes Obama's diplomatic initiative from others is the "downgrading" of Israel in order to strike a grand bargain with Iran for regional pacification. Whether Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu wants it or not, Jerusalem is now on a collision course with Washington.
Netanyahu is attempting to establish a nexus between a Palestinian accord and the elimination of this threat. After all, he contends, Iran potential nuclear weapons would serve as a cover for Hamas missile attacks against Israel, since escalation could lead to a nuclear exchange and should be avoided at all cost.
The Obama administration's position is the opposite. It appears to be arguing that an accommodative Israel that makes a deal with the Palestinians for a separate state will have American protection against a possible Iranian nuclear attack. But the first and overarching responsibility lies with Israel to arrange its negotiated settlement with Palestinian leaders.
Obama believes time is on his side since he has already conceded that Iran will have the time to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu, unable to accept the potential threat, feels time is of the essence. The closer Iran gets to the fateful tipping point, the closer Israel is to danger.
Erstwhile President Jimmy Carter tried to assuage Israeli leaders in 1979 by noting that his craven concession to Iranian leaders did not pose a threat to Israel. Is Obama preparing to go one step further? History is waiting impatiently for an answer.
Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).
Follow The Examiner
