NUCLEAR
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Preventing disaster
30-Nov-2009
Only a few weeks after US-Iran diplomacy began in earnest, it seems to be heading towards a premature ending. Rather than tensions reduction, the world has witnessed the opposite. Iran is refusing to accept a fuel swap deal brokered by the IAEA, the IAEA has passed a resolution rebuking Iran, and Tehran has responded by approving a plan to build ten more nuclear facilities.
With the potential end of at least this phase of diplomacy, fears of a disastrous Israeli attack on Iran are on the rise once more. But contrary to Washington's official line, America is capable of preventing Israel from initiating a war that would further destabilize the Middle East.
Conventional wisdom in Washington reads that the United States has little influence over Israel, particularly on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, since Israel maintains that it is an existential threat.
Washington has utilized the perception of Israeli immunity to international pleas to pressure China to rebuke Tehran. According to the Washington Post, National Security Council officials recently traveled to Beijing and used the Israeli card to get the Chinese on board.
“The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries," according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut.”
It is questionable that the Chinese were moved by the notion that Israel cannot be influenced by the international community on this issue. Mindful of the strength of US-Israeli relations, it is hardly convincing that Washington cannot influence Israel's actions towards Iran.
Indeed, there is an important precedent in which Washington successfully prevented Israel from taking military action even when Israel itself had been attacked.
On August 2, 1990, almost a year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Iron Curtain divide, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Within months, the George H. W. Bush administration carefully assembled a coalition of states under the UN flag and defeated the Iraqi army and restored Kuwait's ruling family, the House of Sabah. The Bush senior administration saw particular value in ensuring that the international coalition contained numerous Arab states. But to get the Arab's to join a war alongside the US and against another Arab power, Israel needed to be kept out of the coalition.
This turned out to be a tricky issue, particularly when Saddam Hussein hurled thirty-four Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, in an obvious attempt to lure Israel into the war. Then-National Security Advisor, General Brent Scowcroft, told me in an interview that the United States told Israel "in the strongest possible words" that it needed to keep itself out of the Iraq operation because Israeli retaliation would cause the collapse of Washington's alliance against Iraq.
For the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, this was a very tough decision. Saddam's missile attacks damaged Israel's public morale; the country's otherwise lively and noisy capital quickly turned into a ghost town. Bush sent Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to Israel to assure Israeli leaders that the United States was doing all it could to destroy the Iraqi missile launchers.
But neither the Israel Defense Forces nor the Ministry of Defense was convinced. Instead, a feeling prevailed among Israel's leaders that Washington was untrustworthy and that it could not be relied upon when it came to Israel's existence. Bad blood was created between Israel and the United States, according to Efraim Halevi, the former head of the Mossad. Washington's protection of Israel was ineffective, and the image that Israel was relying on the United States for protection was hard to stomach for ordinary Israelis. Shamir's decision to accommodate the Americans was extremely unpopular, because it was believed that it "would cause irreparable damage to Israel's deterrent capabilities," Halevi told me. To make matters worse, people around Shamir felt that the United States did not reward Israel for, in their view, effectively enabling the coalition to remain intact by refusing to retaliate against Iraq.
Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security.
In July 2008, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned against any Israeli military action against Iran, saying that the Middle East would become "more unstable" and that it would put US forces under much stress, indicating that an Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably suck the US into war with Iran. "From the United States' perspective, the United States' military perspective, in particular, opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us," Mullen told reporters.
A year later, Mullen's line was echoed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who warned that a military attack would only be a "temporary solution." "There's a lot of talk about a military effort to take out their nuclear capabilities, but, in my view, it would only be a temporary solution," Gates told reporters in September 2009.
Beyond the impact an Israeli attack on Iran would have on US national security, the first casualty of war with Iran would be the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Having shown great courage in challenging the Ahmadinejad government, the last thing Iran's pro-democracy activists need is for Iran to get embroiled in a military confrontation with Israel and the US. Their struggle for democracy will be infinitely more difficult in the midst of war.
Should diplomacy with Iran fail, and should Israel seek to attack Iran, America will have plenty of reasons to prevent such a disaster from taking place. And history shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, Washington has the ability to prevent Israel from taking actions that would endanger America.
AUTHOR
Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance - The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007) and President of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian American grassroots organization in the US. This commentary was first published inHuffingtonPost.com.
| Recently by Trita Parsi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Midwesty jaan "vicious" attacks on NIAC are nothing nada, zilch!
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 09:21 AM PSTWho really cares about the "attacks" from ill wishers of NIAC? They are nobodys who want to be somebody and the only way they've found for themselves (not Iranians) is to attack NIAC.
At most they are those who attend the green rallies and wave the lion and sun flag. Now compare the numbers of the greens to these embicils.
NIAC has never cared to explain anything to them and they move ahead and get prizes and get invited to news organizations and more and their ill wishers keep grinding their teeth in anger, jealousy and frustrations!
May Tiger Woods' wife attack them with Tiger's most expensive golf club!
Everything is sacred.
Hovakhshatare,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:51 AM PSTWhat is your substance here? if it's of a legal form I hope!
Trita, do you have anything of substance to contribute?
by Hovakhshatare on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:48 AM PSTWar has no support and diplomacy with IRR has failed. If it ever works it will be at the expense of people in Iran as IRR has no place to go after current appointment, so any diplomacy will mean their logevity.
Your article has re-stated well known mass media information and PR to draw the conclusion that war is not good. Woopy doo.
Then you go on to conclude diplomacy is the only hope because Israel will attack and that was whispered to your ear in person by Mosad. Your argument is nothing but status quo and it is a desireable position for you to maintain but do you have something of substance to contribute?
Anonymouse jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:41 AM PSTPoor Tiger doesn't know he has to bear the load from his wife's anceint picture on the Internet or the recent media hype attacking his privacy...
But nonetheless, what you said about retaliation is what this article is trying to accomplish. However NIAC has gotten a lot of attention which brings a lot of other things too including vicious attacks. They are simply occupied with other side tracks that doesn't leave them enough time to emphesize on the consequences of even talking about war with Iran.
Midwesty jaan may Tiger Woods' wife attack your ill wishers!
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:28 AM PSTI don't think anything has changed in Iran-Arab world's relationships. Can you name one Arab country to which Iran has become closer to? If anything since the end of Iran-Iraq war Iran has become more isolated and more Arab countries in the Gulf and elsewhere are now full pledged US allies.
Iran is all screwed and isolated in the eyes of the world, especially after the elections. No one will side with Iran other than Chavez, Raul and bunch of other free loaders.
We live in middle east where Arabs hold the majority. Other muslim countries of southeast Asia such as Indonesia and Phillippines don't care much about Iran, don't know much about Iran other than their nutty president!
The only thing I can say is that we need to sharpen our strategy and let the world know that an Israeli attack is just rhetoric. Trita and others need to say it more. In TV and news shows we need to say that an Israeli attack will provoke retaliation. I'm not even 100% sure if Iran will actually retaliate right away or try to talk in UN and Ahmadi writing letters to Pope and Obama! But we need to talk about retaliation.
When you turn on the TV all you hear is Israeli attack, same as this article. We hear nothing more than just Israeli attack, attack, attack and more attack. We need top talk about consequences of a retaliation.
Everything is sacred.
No Fear jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:12 AM PSTSari keh dard nemikoneh ...adam dastmal nemibandeh...
Anonymouse jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:16 AM PSTThe Iran-Iraq war was in surface Iran-Arab war but what motivated some Arabs(exclude Syrians, Lebenease, and many more) to stand against Iran was because they got fooled by their governments under the umbrella of the Pan_Arabism.
Can we say this now where Arab governements and their allies are discreditted during two recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no clear-cut dictator yet such as Saddam in Iran and Iran is not as isolated as Iraq.?
But still Arab population is a minority in the Muslim world. Iran is able to conduit all the muslims on her east to pour in on Israel. Iran with no guns is more capable than Iran with a gun.
Midwesty,
by No Fear on Tue Dec 01, 2009 08:14 AM PSTDon't be so sensitive. I'm sure if a war breaks out against our motherland, You will be fighting alongside me at the front line. I represent only myself, thats all.
For the record, i will give my life to defend Iran and i will side with the devil if i have to.
.
by timothyfloyd on Wed May 12, 2010 09:12 PM PDT.
Midwesty jaan may your problems break your ill wisher's head!
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:46 AM PSTYes neocons headed by their hero W engineered the Iraq war. But even W himself acknowledges what a mistake it was. In his last interviews he refered to some "mistakes" and all those mistakes were the foundation by which he started and continued the war.
So yes bull crap by Israel's Netanyaboo and neocons are tabagh tabagh but of no substance anymore. They can only fool those who still believe in neocons.
Also, we are not well liked in the Arab world. Just like Arabs are not well liked in Iran. It is a sad story and one that hopefully will end some day. We're liked in progressive Arab circles just like Arabs are like in Iranian circles but not generally speaking.
If you're refering to Arabs liking us because of green movement and standing up to a ruthless regime, just like theirs, yes that they like but in a war they won't side with us, just like they didn't during the Iran-Iraq war.
Everything is sacred.
Itching for War
by Cost-of-Progress on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:41 AM PSTThe filthy beard and unwashed hair of these turban-wearing bastards is itching to start a war. That would guaranty their rein of terror on Iran and her people for another 30 years and overnight eliminates any chance of the brave Iranian people to reclaim their occupied land.
Damn to hell these anti nationalist pigs - and their supporters every friggin' where.
____________________
IRAN BEFORE ISLAM
____________________
Anonymouse Jan,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:29 AM PSTIn the Arab and muslim world we are looked up to as heros.
No Fear,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:26 AM PSTIf you are an Iranian, you are not representing me! Just for the record.
Anonymouse,
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:24 AM PSTHaven't the necons clearly indicated the nuclear attack against Iran before? Although I agree with you in core but:
Better be safe than sorry!
Furthermore Dr. Parsi
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:38 AM PSTYou are not only giving a big favore to Amricans by brining this matter to light but also enlightening minds of people who usually get to see the devestating results that come out of minds of political stooges here and across the pawn afterwards.
More barking = Less bitting
by No Fear on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:18 AM PSTThe day that our missiles became accurate with solid fuel engines , I thought the threat of Israel's attack was over.
Sepah has always stated that if our nuclear facilities were attacked, the same fate awaites Israel's nuclear facilities.
Israel can not afford even one of our missiles hitting their heavy water reactors releasing radioactive material to be consumed by God's chosen people.
We just have to keep reminding them that we WILL retaliate and we WILL do it harder with more devastating effects.
Rest assured, Israel doesn't have the eggs to attack Iran.
I don't agree Midwesty this is not gun againts unified humanity
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:12 AM PSTThis is gun against gun. Period. More like missiles against missiles. In an Israeli attack most Arab Governments (don't read Arab people) will either stay silent or go to Israeli side and justify their actions.
Countries such as Venezuela or Ivory Coast (Ghatebeh ;-) may join in spirit but not in guns. So even if Israeli strikes Iran with nuclear weapons some of Iran's missiles will get there and it's not like Israel has 800 million population or anything.
So there will be massive casualties on both sides and this is why I'm saying it is just bull crap. When Israel attacjed Iraq or Syria it was much much easier, near their immediate borders and they were sure there would not be retaliation. There is no such guarantee for Iran.
Everything is sacred.
I don't think Israel is able to attack Iran
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 07:10 AM PSTNot that they don't have the capabilities, but the fear of retaliation. If you consider the last major wars that Iran has been involved with, Iran has always came victorious if the war was as a result of a religious difference.
IRI has for many years invested in that account and will release it's entire capital on this matter. The Arab world (don't read Arab governemnts), the non-Arab muslim world and IRI freinds across the western world will join to help.
Israel might have couple of powerful governments backing it up but what it boils down to will be the power of gun against a united front of humanity.
IRI is an expert to prolong the war and I don't see Israel has a chance to edure in a prolonged war. So there would be one option left. A nuclear attack against Iran to wipe out the entire Iranian nation as Hillary nodded before.
I agree Midwesty this is bout Israeli bull crap of striking Iran
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:59 AM PSTEverything is sacred.
Sargord you don't mind
by timothyfloyd on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:54 AM PSTSargord you don't mind comparing Prisioners of War to regular Iranians.It's irrevelent to Iranians.When the people decide to trample on thru the rest of Tehran and stomp the Govt into the ground next time,you can tell them everythings ok,because America and Isreal did it to their enemies when they were AT WAR.You if you really are a soldier,you should know the difference between Civilian life and Military life.Let alone treating your civilians like PRISIONERS OF WAR..But since you are a Regimist,you may think it's the same thing.
Free the Student's in Iran!
Why are we confusing things here?
by Midwesty on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:52 AM PSTThis article is neither about human rights issue nor about Ahmadinejad's performance, it's about:
"Just as Israeli retaliation against Iraq in 1991 would have been devastating for the US, an Israeli preventive attack against Iran today would spell disaster for US national security".
Don't you agree?
So by confusing human rights issue with nuclear issue and looming threat of war YOU WILL NOT HELP eaither of these issues.
Thanks Dr. Parsi for your article. I don't think any true American or Iranian or Iranian-American will support any war at this stance because of the devestating outcomes that it will bring to all nations involved.
Abarmard,
by No Fear on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:47 AM PSTThere must be more to this. Just because of where this swap should take place ( which can be resolved diplomatically fairly easy ), we shouldn't be in this situation. This is a power struggle within Iran and Larijani is just making it difficult by demanding the %20 fuel to come to Iran before the %3.5 goes out.
Larijani was himself the chief nuclear negotiator before. He knows very well how unreasonable his demands are. Thats a no brainer.
No Fear
by Abarmard on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:36 AM PSTThe disagreement was based on lack of Western guarantee for delivery of enriched Uranium. Mr. Larijani had suggested this to be done within the Iranian soil, and this is where we are now.
Other Interesting questions...
by No Fear on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:35 AM PSTDid IAEA find any thing suspecious at fardo site? why did it want it suspended?
Was this latest harsh stance by IAEA against Iran, a sign that Al baradi is preparing himself as presidential candidate for Egypt?
Is Iran refusing to hand over nuclear fuel because its really after the fat lady? Or does it believe the nuclear fuel are bargaining chips?
We both know Ahmadinejad government and the parliament had two very different approach to this issue. Which of these two nuclear policies are closer to Rahbar?
Sargord Please don't insult my intelligence
by Ali9 Akbar on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:32 AM PSTBy obfuscating the facts ...
Sure Gitmo was bad and I'm sure if you go into details of US History you'll find other skeletons in the closet Israeli atrocities are numerous but while we're at it lets mention AFRICA I'm quite sure we'll find the IRI behind some of the massacres there... And lets look at Yugoslavia in the 1990's the USA came to the aid of Muslims there who were being attacked by RUSSIAN Backed Serbs[ the SUPPORTERS of the IRI]... so please do not pick and choose which atrocities you'll mention and others you'll ignore ...
Am i missing some important facts here?
by No Fear on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:16 AM PSTI thought Ahmadinejad's nuclear team and the IAEA actually came very close to the agreement of nuclear material swap, and it was the Parliament speaker , Larijani , who said the parliament won't approve it.
Then hell broke loose and every one start blaming Ahmadinejad for softening its stance blah blah blah .. Even Mousavi came out and said some non sense about this issue. Next thing i recall was Ahmadinejad becoming "kaseh az aash daagtar" and becoming even MORE radical, like a counter attack to internal pressure.
I thought the Nuclear swap was Okay for Iran. It kind of legitimized our right to enrich up to 3.5 percent. We could have bargained for more percentage down the road, but it would have broke the deadlock now.
I think this was clearly a sign of power struggle between factions in Iran to weaken one another. Any thoughts? Am i missing anything?
Ali
by Sargord Pirouz on Tue Dec 01, 2009 06:11 AM PSTI'm a realist with IRI mainstream political views.
There is no great rush to nuclear weapon capability taking place. Read the 2007 NIE. What does it say? Read the IAEA reports. No diversion of nuclear materials.
The goal is an extensive nuclear power industry and infrastructure. A latent nuclear weapon capacity may or may not be a side element to this endeavor.
If we're to follow your reasoning regarding human rights violations, what are we to say about trusting a nation after the illegal Iraq invasion? Guantanimo? Abu Ghraib? Bagram? Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens incarcerated without due process? Millions of Iraqi refugees? Hundreds of Afghani cilvilians killed by drone attacks? etc. etc. etc.
Israeli HR violations miniscule? They are holding tens of thousands in prison for years without dues process. They massacred thousands during Cast Lead and the 33 day war. They hold captive millions of people in the occupied territories. Gaza is under an inhumane siege. etc. etc. etc.
Ali, it must be terribly hard to suffer from such a delusion, and be so disconnected to the meehan. I don't mean this as an insult. I wish I could help you.
Are you really that naive Sargord???
by Ali9 Akbar on Tue Dec 01, 2009 05:52 AM PSTJust look at the EGREGIOUS violations of human rights within Iran
[1] Non-Muslims MURDERED RAPED and ROBBED of their hard work and life savings
Bahais...Christians... Buddhists... Atheists...et al
[2] the BARBARIC REPRESSION of political dissidents ....
[3]threatening war against anyone who disagrees with them
If you allow these satanic demons the atomic weaponry they want they can hold hostage 6.5 BILLION PEOPLE....
I for one dislike the Israeli Government roadblocks to peace in the region by allowing settlements in the west bank but Iranian violations of human rights make Israeli violations seem minuscule...
About Saddam's scud missles thrown at Israel, I remember
by Anonymouse on Tue Dec 01, 2009 05:46 AM PSTDuring those missile crisis, the question was asked about "what can Israeli military do that US military isn't doing? US is flying 24/hours round the clock Air Force sorties with all kinds of fighting aircrafts and bombings by Navy destroyers and a 1 million ground troops ready to roll"
Think about it, what would teeny, tiny Israel do that US wasn't doing already? Well one brave Israeli responded on TV that Israel could attack civilian targets and retaliate in kind. I don't think by retaliate in kind he meant sending back scud type missles.
Anyway, Israel can attack Iranian civilian targets because they are easier for them and Iran will retaliate in kind. This is a no win situation and I doubt Israel or Iran are dumb enough to start a pre-emptive strike knowing the consequences. This is all just a pissing contest.
Everything is sacred.
I love that Fred follows Trita
by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on Tue Dec 01, 2009 03:44 AM PSTI enjoy it because I think Fred is kicking himself for never having had the idea to begin this brilliant organization himself. Now he is bound to ad hominem attacks and malicious slandering of Parsi and NICA. Poor Fred. Looks like, to borrow his words, he is "left only with the war option". Poor Fred. The world is but too dark for a man so hollowed.