The bluff that never stops giving?

Netanyahu and threat of bombing Iran

Share/Save/Bookmark

The bluff that never stops giving?
by Trita Parsi
08-Apr-2009
 

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have told President Barack Obama that either America stops Iran or Israel will. Not surprisingly, the interview sparked quite a controversy and only a day later, General David Petreus told the Senate Arms Services Committee that "the Israeli government may ultimately see itself so threatened by the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon that it would take preemptive military action to derail or delay it."

So once again, in spite of President Obama's best efforts, the military option was put back on the table and the atmosphere for dealing with Iran was turned into "Do as we say - or else..." Even if the President wants to give diplomacy a chance, disbelievers have been quick to limit Obama's options by seeking to set arbitrary deadlines for negotiations - or by threatening Israeli military action if America doesn't act with its military might.

Reality is, however, that talk of an Israeli military option is more of a bluff than a threat - but it is a bluff that never seems to stop giving.

Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.

Yet, the threat of military action, or rather the bluff, serves a purpose: Threats of military action militarizes the atmosphere. It creates an environment that renders diplomacy less likely to succeed - it may even prevent diplomacy from being pursued in the first place.

In the Iranian case, Netanyahu's tough talk undermines the Obama administration's prospects for diplomacy in the following ways.

Getting to the negotiating table has proven an arduous task for the US and Iran. Both sides are currently testing each other's intentions, asking themselves if the other side is serious about diplomacy or if the perceived desire for talks is merely a tactical maneuver to either buy time or build greater international support for more confrontational policies down the road. From Tehran's perspective, uncertainty about Washington's intentions during the Bush administration was partly fueled by the insistence of the military option remaining on the table. Tehran seemed to fear entering negotiations that could have been designed to fail, since that could strengthen the case for military action against Iran.

Today, talk of Israeli strikes has similar effects. Tehran has repeatedly failed to appreciate the policy differences between Washington and Tel Aviv, oftentimes seeing them as either a perfectly coordinated team or as a single entity. Consequently, explicit or implicit threats of Israeli military action reduce Tehran's confidence in Washington's intentions.

Furthermore, Iran's sense of a threat from the US (and in extension Israel) is believed to be one of the driving forces of Iran's nuclear program. Whether Iran seeks a weapon or a civilian program that provides Iran with a weapons capability, the program's existence provides Tehran with a level of deterrence against the perceived US threat. The Obama administration's approach seems to have been to reduce Iran's sense of threat in order to kick-start negotiations. The threat of Israeli military action does the opposite - it fuels Iranian insecurity and closes the window for diplomacy.

Moreover, Israel uses this threat to pressure Washington and the EU to act tough. This has been a cornerstone of Israeli policy towards Iran since the mid-1990s. Even though Israel is reluctant to put itself on the frontline against Iran, fearing that this would counter its message that Iran is the world's and not just Israel's problem, it also fears that the absence of Israeli pressure would cause the West to go soft on Iran. Hence, Israel keeps the pressure on the West - by threatening military action - in order for the West to keep pressuring Iran. However, under the current circumstances, Israeli pressure may compel the Obama administration to adopt a confrontational approach that is incompatible with the diplomatic strategy President Obama seems to prefer.

Finally, Netanyahu - as well as hawks in Washington - are using the threat of Israeli military action to create arbitrary deadlines for negotiations with Tehran combined with exaggerated expectations of what diplomacy must achieve. The message of Israeli hawks has been that it can only afford to give diplomacy "a few months," meaning that whatever sanctions and confrontation has failed to achieve with Iran in the past 30 years, must miraculously be obtained after only a few months of negotiations - otherwise Israel will take military action.

This logic does two things. First, it brings us back to the foreign policy approach of the Bush administration in which diplomacy was treated with suspicion and skepticism, and military confrontation was viewed as a policy option with guaranteed success. Second, it ensures that diplomacy fails by denying it the time and space it needs to succeed and by setting the bar too high.

This does not mean that Israel does not have legitimate reasons to fear Iran's nuclear advances - on the contrary. But what lies at the heart of Israel's maneuvers is not necessarily the fear of a nuclear clash, but the regional and strategic consequences nuclear technology in Iranian hands will have for Israel.

In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.

The real danger a nuclear-capable Iran brings with it for Israel is twofold. First, an Iran with nuclear capability will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans.

This could force Israel to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors in order to deprive Iran of points of hostility that it could use against the Jewish state. Israel simply would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.

Second, the deterrence and power Iran would gain by mastering the fuel cycle could compel Washington to cut a deal with Tehran in which Iran would be recognized as a regional power and gain strategic significance in the Middle East at the expense of Israel. This has been a major Israeli fear since the end of the Cold War, when Israel's strategic utility to Washington lost considerable justification due to the absence of a Soviet threat. Under these circumstances, US-Iran negotiations could damage Israel's strategic standing, since common interests shared by Iran and the US would overshadow Israel's concerns with Tehran and leave Israel alone in facing its Iranian rival. The Great Satan will eventually make up with the ayatollahs and forget about the Jewish state, Israeli officials fear.

Netanyahu's threat of stopping Iran if Obama doesn't should be seen in light of the Israeli rights's fear of a US-Iran deal. Talk of Israeli military action has not coincided with major advances in Iran's nuclear program, but rather with hints of an American preparedness to strike a compromise with Tehran that would grant it the dreaded know-how and limit Israel's strategic maneuverability.

The flaw in the Netanyahu's approach, however, is its underestimation of how US-Iran diplomacy can significantly alter Iran's posture towards the Jewish state and reduce the threat it faces from Tehran. Therein lies the opening for Israel's new prime minister that carries far greater promise for Israel's security than efforts to complicate Washington's path towards diplomacy.

Trita Parsi is president and co- founder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States." First published in Huffington Post.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
5
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
18
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
26
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi
 
default

Yaboo must be kicked

by XerXes (not verified) on

He should see the picture where we are flogging the criminals. That would be his future. No mercy.


Ostaad

Yabu is a big pussy

by Ostaad on

The Natyanyahu-Barak duo is intimately familiar with defeat. Barak tasted defeat by Hezbollah, with Iran's help, and had to pull the Zionist invaders out of Lebanon with their chosen tails between their chosen legs, and Natanyanhu, had to release Sheikh Yassin, the main Hamas leader from Prison in exchange for the four Mossad klutzes who tried to poison a Hamas leader in Jordan but got caught on their way out - he even had to fly the antidote to Jordan after eating a ton of crow. Natanyahu's free market policies (Israel's version of trickle down economy) have fizzled down badly. These guys know better than anyone that Israel is more like a liability and a charity case rather than an ally of the US. One look at the dismal state of the economy in Israel will convince everyone that Natanyahu cannot start a war with Iran unless the US wants it. All indications point to the direction of negotiations and compromise between the US and Iran, therefore regardless of the fact how hard some crazies in Israel keep beating the war drums, the US will not allow it. There are a lot of people in Israel who have their heads on their shoulders, and just as Ahamdinejad cannot destroy Israel, the Yabu cannot attack Iran on his own either. I wouldn't worry about that big pussy if I were you, JJ.


default

Thank you

by Dariush (not verified) on

Thank you, Mr. Parsi for your interesting and very accurate analysis. I also thank others who replied in your support and put our differences aside. when it comes to Iran's sovereignty and Iranians well being, we are United against any foreign aggressor. OUR SOVERNTY, INDEPENDENCE AND RIGHTS ARE NON NEGOTIABL. As these are every countries rights.

Most likely Iran already has the ACE and is holding them for the right time. Attacking Iran is a big bad gamble for Israel and west, considering that no matter who attacks, Israel is the first to get hit hard. This WILL most likely wipe Israel off the map. Israel has a choice, pull back and live in peace or continue aggression and threats and face elimination.


default

Israhell

by Surna Aryan (not verified) on

It is so funny to see the brain washed masses are engaged in perceived notion of battle between the three desert dogma branches of Semitic culture.

For the first time, by inapt partnership of Constantine (Roman Emperor) with murderess gang of Christians, the Semitic culture moved beyond its lizard infest borders around forth century AD. By seven century another Semitic clan under the flag of Islam moved beyond their infested land of darkness to mimic their Christian’s cousin strategy of expansion and annihilation of other cultures. The third branch of Semitics the Jews (the chosen ones) adapted the real clan strategy by not expanding with sword but, by moving among other cultures and control their money supply and spreading propaganda.

The real struggle is between the Aryan's culture of hard work, humanity and respect for Mother Nature with Semitic’s culture of superstitious, laziness, lying and thievery.

It is an irony that our culture is under attack from every direction. From inside the Semitic-Muslim and from outside both the Arabs and Jews (children of Ibrahim) are trying to erase our history and culture.

These barbaric Ibrahimics have distorted the entire mankind history. Creating a false HOLOCAUST is the least of their sins. The list of false event are:
1- Abrahim's god created the world in six days. (lies)
2- On the seventh man is created. (again a grand lie)
3- Moses is set as his prophet (who testifies to this. Nobody, therefor another false).
4- Jesus is set as his prophet (who testifies to this. Nobody, therefor another false).
5- and the grand of them all, Mohamad is set as his prophet (who testifies to this. Nobody, therefor another false).
6- Christianity entered Europe peacefully. (False, all the non-believers were wiped-out.
7- Islam came to Iran the same way. (I need not say anything more)
8- Jews were victim of Hitler (Proof: Hollywood's movies. Let's look at the 300 to see how these tribe distorts reality)
Damn the Ibrahim and his descendants.

Long live the land of aryan (IRAN)
United Aryan of Eurasia (pan-aryan)


default

History: Didn't I Tell You?

by Prof. Dr. Hassan Danesh (not verified) on

As the two states of iran and the u.s. get closer and closer to open up formalized channel of diplomacy, the only honorable path for the Islamic Republic is to exit and to leave immidiately for regime change. Without this change my warning is that the history will treat them harshly with extreme cruelty & horror in the same way wer witnessed it in the beginning of 1979 revolution...


desi

According to the LA Times

by desi on

According to the LA Times today, Vice President Joe Biden tells CNN that the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be 'ill advised' to try to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

I read this piece as a clear warning from the White House to Israel.

//www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-biden-israel-iran8-2009apr08,3,5010679.story 

 

 


default

How could any sane country

by Meehan (not verified) on

How could any sane country make peace with TOI? This is an Islamist government in Iran that not only supports terror and has global aspirations but also has killed it's own citizens? How could America,Israel,Europe and even Russia trust TOI that is an Islamist terrorist govt that actually promotes suicide bombing and ideation to have nukes?


default

Iranian patriots to Yaboo: "go ahead make my day.."

by iranian patriot (not verified) on

It's time for teaching Israel a lesson. If Israel attack Iran 70 million people will be added to her enemies who will fight her till the end. Even a Fascist Zionist like Yaboo knows it but keeps on bragging. Without USA support Israel aint shit!


khaleh mosheh

Make peace not war

by khaleh mosheh on

The Israeli and US politicians would leave a far better legacy and better names for themselves if they build their strategy on gaining long term peace rather than causing perpetual war.

The names of Bush, Blair, Olmert (&Co) are synonomous with dog muck due the ongoing bloody mayhem that they have created.

Great article. Thank you.


default

PARSI.....for once

by hamid54 (not verified) on

why don't you say "let's get rid of these mullahs and have free elections...."
instead of blaming the US for everything?!!

I know the answer, but I won't write it down because my comment may be deleted.....those who have read your previous comments also know the answer.

it's a shame that you have never really fought for the freedom of the iranian people, only to prolong their suffering....go figure!


default

Israel wanting to fight Iran

by Amit (not verified) on

Is like small town in the Africa wanting to bomb over France. Just not possible. In the best scenario Israel will be able to bomb some important sites but my question would be: now what. Iran will return with a vengeance and there is no stopping to what will come out of it.
The resources in Iran are just too vast to be ignored for any conflict.


default

I don't think Netanyahu is bluffing.

by Faribors Maleknasri M.D. (not verified) on

So means Mr. John John the respectable Web Master. I think he may and also he may not. However since years is the Islamic Republic of Iran sorrounded by some dirty stincky undefinable strange creatures which permanently grunt and bark and bluff with attacking that country AND have not dared to do so. Is that all something else except bluffing? and since for example let us say Pigs, well when pigs grunt shouldent dogs bark? Just to show they will do whatever the Pigs order? However please just aknowledge the following message: Israeli daily Ha'aretz, shows that the Obama White House is making preparations for 'a possible confrontation' with the new Israeli premier. So i can say again: be happy, dont worry. I have been saying this slogan as "IRANIAN"s main discussion subject was: Will america attack? I knew: It will not. and has it attacked? On the other side what Mr. John JOhn says must be taken seriously into account too. Since some dieing man may want to die as a hero and wishes to be shut down. In this sence: Israel may attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. In order to die as a hero. Greeting


default

He is ugly

by Moscow girl (not verified) on

He is not an attractive person. I never knew about the crimes of Israelis until I began to do some research. It's mind boggling how we allow them to do what they do. They need to stop.


default

JJ this article isn't about

by Derakhshandeh (not verified) on

JJ this article isn't about Israel's bluff. Although, I agree that the idea is more widespread than just Netanyahu and that is the reason he got elected, like Bush himself for his second term.

This article is about doing everything possible to put a wedge between any "possible" US-Iran talks. This is the same old you are either with us or against us. As Trita stated this is about the "threat" that Iran still feels either with US (read us) or without US (read us).

Once and if Iran gets over this hump there will be meaningful changes and that scares Israel. So they play their bluff. And we should take them seriously just like they are taking us seriously. Idiot Mullahs!


default

Israel cannot do anything on its own

by Yek-Irani (not verified) on

As I have said before in Iranian.com many times before, the Zionist controlled media in the Western world try to advance two big lies above everything else:
1) Israel is a strong country
2) Israel is a democracy
Nothing can be further from the truth. Israel has not won a single war on its own. Also Israel is an apartheid state like the former South Africa


default

What difference does it make?

by Hassan Danesh . (not verified) on

Kakoo vaaseh maa ke farghi nameekonah...bomb bezanand .. nazanand... in zendegeee maast...farghi namkonnah...har aan margh raahatist...estrahatast...

kakooo heech aslan farghi nameekonnah...


default

Well said Mr. Parsi. Thank

by Bibi (not verified) on

Well said Mr. Parsi.
Thank you


default

Why Israel will not attack Iran

by Alborzi (not verified) on

We humans before we do any action we do a fast calculation in our brain. What is the cost of such an action vs the benefit. Yahoo would love to satisfy the blood thirsty flank, the NAZI guy (some Polish name, I am sure we will hear it), but even Gaza massacre (against defenseless people) was costly , Lebanon invasion arguably was a draw and Hezbullah was not ready. An operation against a big country like Iran , is very costly for a advanced society like Israel. In his last interview Ahmadinejad kept emphasizing that Israel is a small country. That was a message to them that they would be very vulnerable. Israel can bark all it wants, but be ware of quiet dogs.


default

How desperate is the Zionist state?

by Kurush (not verified) on

1-Assume that Iran did have nuclear warheads & was capable of long-range delivery systems, it would not be hard to imagine the treatment Iran would get from the West and its poodle in the ME, namely, a lot of respect & complete absence of gunboat diplomacy. Therefore, one can not blame Iran's leadership for the headlong pursuit of nucler ballistic missiles. In fact, it would be a treason to Iran's long-term national interests if the Iranian leadersip capitulated and renounced its rights to the nuclear capabilities.
2-The treatment Iran is receiving from the US today , full of threats and reprisals, is essentially not unlike the treatment the Russians received when the US ultimatum was delivered by the US secretary of State, James Byrnes, to Molotov at the London conference in the immediate aftermath of the allies' WWII victory. The American threats were so bare-knuckled that Molotov at one time had to bluff that the Soviets already had the nuclear bomb although it would be another 3 years befor the Soviets tested their first bomb. What saved the Russians at the end of day was their colossal military presence at the gates of the Western countries which the Soviets could have easily overrun in the event of the commencement of hostilities. For Iran, at the end of the day, it would be a hard calculation by the West and its poodle as to the military capabilites of Iran which might ultimately determine the outcome.
3-The Western colonial outposts have always been historically bellicose with warrior mentality bordering on lunacy. Quite often, the British colonialists in India, against the cautious advice from London, were planning the invasions of outlying nations for one cockamamie pretext to another, thus invading Afghanistan, Burma, China, Malaya, within a few short decades. The Zionist state is not any different: with a mixture of lunacy and forebodings about the viability of the outpost itself in the long run which drives its obsessions about the threats it must destroy before they become actual.
4-Obama, has shown complete pusillanimity vis-a-vis the war party which has been driving the US policies in the past two decades or so. But is Obama aware that, while he did not start the Afghan and Iraq wars, he now owns this legacy and he has succumbed to the worst impulses which the neo-cons & fascists in the US have been infecting everyone with? This lack of awarness has put Obama on the same path as Nixon who promised cessation of the Vietnam war upon his arrival in the White House, but ended up escalating and expanding it into Indochina with the evnetual US defeat.
5-The US has longterm plans for Iraq & Afghaistan. Permanent US bases in both countries will gurantee the US 'Imperial' rights in the ME not dissimilar with those of the British in the interim between the WWI & WWII; and the in the case of Afghanistan, a perfect military platform to stab China & Russia in the back with a concurrent invasion of Iran from both the East and the West. A 700 million dollars embassy in Baghdad capbale of withsanding nuclear blasts is a loud testimony to the deparavity of the US imperial claims in the ME and its lust for worldwide hegemony.


Bavafa

JJ no offence but for once you are making much sense :)

by Bavafa on

Mehrdad


default

Leave it to Israel

by Anonymous-Patriot (not verified) on

If we leave it to Israel to bring about a change in Iran's policy of nuclear energy, we will get what Israel is good at; another 60 year war. Israel may bring many good things to the world but it has shown that it is incapable of compromise and peaceful co-existance, even when it is the clear victor. For that matter, neither are the Mullahs capable of the same. And America is nowhere to be found as discussing Israel policy is not covered by the US constitution right of free speech.

So Iranians are stuck in the middle.


default

Thank you Mr. Parsi

by Mashty (not verified) on

Great article. As usual I learned something new. I would say that Iranian people will remember Israel for a long time as their enemy. Our historical memory has become much larger than it used to be. Good thing that Iran's dislike to that nation is not singular, but shared with a huge international community. I am glad that Israel wants to attack Iran only in the fact that if they didn't, then the Islamic Republic would be wrong to claim that they are blood sucking system. They only prove the Islamic Republic right.


Jaleho

Great and timely again, Mr. Parsi!

by Jaleho on

I am glad that through NIAC the Obama administration can get realistic assessments of the situation in the Middle East.

Successive US administrations in the past, were fed lies and one-sided Middle East policy assessment and advice from AIPAC to advance Israeli interest first and foremost. Although decades of Israeli-centric policy has established deep roots between AIPAC and policy makers in the US government, but the process of slow awakening is certainly hastened by your admirable efforts in helping Middle Eastern realities be heard in the halls of government.

PS. With every toothless saber rattling of Israelis, Iran seesm to gain a bit on the oil price. I wonder if Israelis like mofaz for example,  balance their possible gains from pure bluff, and what Iran gains from increased price of oil ;-)


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Yahoo Benny just wait until the Iraq Air Base is done

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Then you can attack with the Yoonited States! America is leaving Iraq, but not without building a base, right? Don't rush it Yahoo Jan. 


default

Thank you Mr. Parsi

by Ahmad Sobhani (not verified) on

Very true and in depth analysis for those who like to know more about the behind the scenes of ME politics.

Mr. Parsi, I was also wondering if there are any plans in order to take the word Middle East from the language. After all we are Asians and belong to that great continent. I would think that putting Iran, Saudi and Israel in one spot as "Culturally" similar is doing injustice. I would like to know your opinion.

Thanks again and God bless you. God bless Iran.


Jahanshah Javid

No bluff

by Jahanshah Javid on

I don't think Netanyahu is bluffing. He may not be the one who pushes the red button. But there are enough paranoid lunatics in mainstream Israeli politics who would bomb Iran without hesitation. And that would strengthen the grip of lunatics in Iran for many more decades and plunge the Middle East into religious wars like nothing you have ever seen. You think it's bad today? You just wait until Israel bombs Iran.


Fred

The strategic yarns they weave

by Fred on

The head of NIAC lobby says: “Israel does not have the military capability to successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Even the most successful bombing campaign would only set back the known program for a few years - without affecting any potential clandestine program. This is not classified information. Military experts are well aware of Israel's capabilities - and its limits.”

He also opions:  “In spite of its rhetoric, Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational, calculating and risk-averse. Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability.”

1-Is the head of NIAC lobby inferring there is an active weponized Islamist nuke program?

2- How does the head of NIAC lobby come to know about the hidden  views of others when all their published views are to the contrary.

3-Aside their mass murder of Iranians, knowing that there are at least three known Islamists in the leadership of the Islamist republic who have had their own children executed, that is their own flesh and blood—and Rafsanjani’s infamouse public boast about the favorable loss/benefit analysis of a nuclear exchange,  how does the NIAC lobbyist come up with the “rational, calculating and risk averse” hypothesis?

4- when  you have a regime that for thirty years openly says and by funding and arming terrorist proxies acts on its wish to destroy a member state of the UN and even writes that wish in bold letters on its ICBMs, is it a stretch to think that they might mean it?

5-This wish of some to come up with a nuke packing Islamist republic as a sledgehammer to actuate their desires is as transparent as all the strategic yarns they weave.