The real choice

The alternative to an Israeli attack on Iran


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

The real choice
by Shlomo Ben-Ami & Trita Parsi
03-Jul-2008
 

Washington and Jerusalem - Is war between Israel and Iran inevitable? To listen to Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Israel's Iranian-born transportation minister Shaul Mofaz, or even recent reports that Israel carried out a major military training mission over the Mediterranean to rehearse an attack on Iran, you might be left with that impression.

Mr. Mofaz's comments last month indicating he would attack Iran didn't help perceptions either. The immediate effect of his statement was a record increase in oil prices – giving Mofaz's Iranian nemeses a windfall of several million dollars.

Mofaz and Mr. Ahmadinejad are wrong. Israel and Iran are not destined to be enemies, nor does the military option present a real way out of the current impasse. In reality, it doesn't offer a solution at all.

Logistical challenges of hitting Iran's nuclear facilities and regional consequences of war aside, military strikes wouldn't destroy any potential clandestine facilities in Iran nor Iran's knowledge of the enrichment process.

Even the most successful bombing raid would leave Iran with some nuclear capability. At best, proponents of this option admit, bombing would set back the program five years. During that time the expectation is that the Iranian people miraculously would unseat the country's ruling clergy and dismantle the nuclear program permanently.

This unjustified expectation underlines a central flaw in the outlook of both Jerusalem and Washington: the tendency to treat the risks and repercussions of military operations with extreme optimism, while treating the diplomacy challenges with extreme skepticism.

A much more probable scenario: Tehran would use the attack to invoke Article 10 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and withdraw from the treaty altogether. This article gives each party the right to withdraw if it decides that extraordinary events "have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." Iran would cease all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, expel all UN inspectors, and by that, deprive the international community of much-needed transparency and insight.

More ominously, the attack could prompt the Iranian leadership to make the crucial decision to seek an actual nuclear bomb and not just the capability to build one, while accentuating Iran's role as a power against the status quo.

Consequently, a successful bombing campaign by either the US or Israel would simply guarantee a nuclear armed and vengeful Iran five years down the road. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, said recently that if Iran left the NPT, it could build a nuclear weapon within a year.

To make matters worse, any military attack would reduce rather than increase the likelihood of a democratic takeover. As unpopular as the Iranian government is, the expectation that a secular democratic government would emerge in the aftermath of a bombing campaign is wildly optimistic and reminiscent of the Bush administration's miscalculations going into Iraq. War with Iran would be the death knell and not the savior of the Iranian democracy movement.

Any serious effort to address the Iranian challenge must recognize the true nature of the conflict. There is nothing apocalyptic about the nuclear stand-off or the Israeli-Iranian rivalry. Rather, these are strategically driven conflicts that can be managed and even resolved through the appropriate level of diplomacy.

A give and take is needed between Iran and Israel in which Iran must end its support for violent groups and acknowledge Israel's legitimate security concerns. Israel and the US must accommodate an Iranian role commensurate with its geopolitical weight and use Iran's inclusion into regional political and economic structures to tame Iran's revolutionary impulses.

That said, Israeli-Iranian enmity is not entirely dissociated from the Arab-Israeli dispute. The latter definitely facilitates and enhances Iran's strategy of regional destabilization. A regional system of security and cooperation in the Middle East cannot be established without an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And it is equally important to address the question of nuclear disarmament.

For regional security to be possible it is not only necessary for Iran, Israel, and the US to grant one another minimum levels of recognition, it would also be necessary that Israel discard the notion that the regional order should be based on its nuclear monopoly.

The real choice in the long run is not between suspension of enrichment or war – it is between a verifiably nuclear-free Middle East or uncontrolled proliferation.

First published in the Christian Science Monitor.

* Shlomo Ben-Ami is vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace and former foreign minister of Israel.

*Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Alliance -- The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.", a Silver Medal Recipient of the Council on Foreign Relations' Arthur Ross Book Award, the most significant award for a book on foreign affairs.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

Good leadership

by Shamse Vazir (not verified) on Fri Jul 04, 2008 08:54 AM PDT

Trita and Shlomo are absolutely right. This is exactly the kind of leadership we need, not more war or talk of it. I commend you both.


  •  
default

To da raba!

by Mordechai Ivry (not verified) on Fri Jul 04, 2008 08:38 AM PDT

As an Israeli, I have to admit that I was a bit shocked to see our former foreign minister write an article with an Iranian or Iranian-American. But I was happily shocked - this is exactly what we need. I would like to commend Parsi and Ben-Ami for the courage they have shown to write something together in these tense times. I have gained new respect for Ben-Ami and am delighted to know that there are ardent proponents for peace among Iranian-Americans as well. Shalom!


  •  
Fred

It is about Iran

by Fred on Fri Jul 04, 2008 08:19 AM PDT

What you state could be a great theoretical debate topic while sipping a latte with a touch of cinnamon. Alas it has no bearing on reality, at least the reality of Islamist republic. In my view the fundamental problem with your assertion in: “Fred that "grand bargain" you so ridiculed could have been the first steps in more opening and cooperation with Iran and a means to disempower the more radical elements” is that by defaukt you believe in a less radical elements in the Islamist republic, I don’t. As for that terrorist funding and the fact others do fund the same groups, you might want to let Hamas, Hezbollah, Sadri gangs,… know about it because they might want to double-dip. And as far as whose hand King Abdullah holds (he held Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani’s hands too) or what he does with his defensless subjects as despicable as it most certainly is, being preoccupied with Iran I feel duty bound and compelled to dedicate all my attention to the enslaved Iranians. Should other Iranians feel otherwise, more power to them all.   


  •  
default

good 4th of July article!

by Anonym7 (not verified) on Fri Jul 04, 2008 07:37 AM PDT

It is time for this kind of views. It time to say good by to insanity that has damaged all sides. Hope too see Israeli tourists visiting historic Synagogue of my hometown (Isfahan) ... Iranians buying Israeli Telecom equipment (that Mossad hasn't tampered with), ....., and Israelis driving Iranian made cars.


  •  
afshin

comic

by afshin on Fri Jul 04, 2008 07:33 AM PDT

I find it hillarious that Pakistan who is known to harbor Al-Qaeda terrorists (possibly even OBL himself), was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban, who is a sworn enemy of Israel, who is NOT a member of the NPT, who does have nuclear weapons, whose people are vehemently anti-American, somehow is known as an "ally" in the war on terror to the free world and beyond, yet Iran is ostracized for enrichment.  Even though it has been the subject of the most stringent and intrusive inspections regime known in the entire history of the non-proliferation treaty.  Fred that "grand bargain" you so ridiculed could have been the first steps in more opening and cooperation with Iran and a means to disempower the more radical elements.  Keep in mind, the ruling establishment derives its raison de etre from having a clear and present foreign danger.  Once that enemy is no longer an enemy, their reason to exist is removed.  And please don't bring up the issue of support for terrorist groups and lack of democracy, because we all know that in real terms it is a farce.  Saudi Arabia gives financial support to the same Palestinian groups that Iran does, yet when President Bush visits Saudi Arabia, he and King Abdullah hold hands.  How many of the 9/11 terrorist groups were Saudi and how many were Iranian?  And let's not forget the utter lack of freedom in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to the extent that women are not allowed to drive or even leave the house unaccompanied by a male relative.

The reality is that for the past 40 years Iran has been actively pursuing the knowledge to master the nuclear fuel cycle.  It is part of the national agenda, and no matter what kind of government is in power, it will be pursued until achieved.  Now, the question is whether the rest of the world wants to resolve the outstanding issues with cowboy diplomacy or through sensible acts which takes in to account Iran's legitimate national security concerns.  Attacking Iran will only give a clear concensus, both through popular demand of the people, and the government's will to survive to pursue a nuclear deterrent.  Active engagement of Iran will encourage transparency for the west and security assurances to Iran so that their nuclear pursuits are not diverted to illicit activities.


  •  
default

Well Said

by Anonymous Observer (not verified) on Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:27 AM PDT

Well written and well reasoned article. Thank you.


  •  
Fred

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

by Fred on Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:24 AM PDT

Aside from being a reworded “grand bargain” where the Islamist republic’s infinite rule is underwritten by the world powers in liue of an enrichment suspension, it perhaps unwittingly makes the best case for regime change by the Iranian people. The prospect of trusting an Islamist republic with full cycle nuclear knowledge and installations constantly hovering at the verge point, for a lack of a more apt word, is just plain dumb. The “real” choice envisioned as being between “a verifiably nuclear-free Middle East or uncontrolled proliferation” is a too idealistic a prospect where a possibly imminent nuclear test in deserts of Iran will invalidate forthwith. That would leave the authors accompanying Mr. El Baradei with few others in a frantic back paddling efforts that would not change the fundamentally catastrophic effect of such a very real possibility. The real hard choice is to morally and materially help the Iranian people to do away with this menacing regime that in all of its manifestations has proven to be a mortal danger to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or doing it the  much messier way.


  •  
« first‹ previous12