Common Security

I was thinking for a while about US - Israel relations as managed by President Obama. Israel's actions have serious implications to our security. If Israel does what it needs to do to protect itself from its enemies, our security and prestige in the region will also improve. This is one part of the world where the strong are respected and the weak are trodden upon. A strong and resolute ally will reflect positively on the US.

There are two standard interpretations of the President's pressure on Israel and rude treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. One is that Obama as a matter of policy is mistreating our allies and kowtowing to our enemies. The other is that he and his advisers believe that Israel is the problem in the Middle East. If only Israel agreed to Arab demands peace would sprout, Iran would stop its nuclear program and everybody would be happy. The fact that no Israeli concession could ever be enough doesn't matter to the Administration.

But there may be another motive behind the President's behavior.

It seems that the big dispute with Israel is not really about building in Jerusalem but about the US Iran policy. Israel justifiably feels threatened and hopes the US will do something before Iran goes nuclear. The US is reluctant. Obama doesn't want to act alone. Action by the UN is unlikely so he does nothing. Maybe he hopes that his charisma and personal charm will convince the ayatollahs to reconsider their policies.

Reportedly when Netanyahu sought US agreement and assistance for an Israeli attack on Iran, Obama refused. He also threatened that the US would not replenish any losses Israel might suffer in such an attack.

Those losses could be significant if the Iranian air defense is any good. Also, without US cooperation Israel is likely to have only one run at Iran, which may not be enough to destroy all the nuclear targets there. As a result Israel is faced with three options:

The first is to do nothing and face a nuclear Iran that has promised to wipe it off the face of the earth. This is obviously unacceptable.

The second would be to attack Iran using the air force and bunker buster bombs. This approach carries a number of dangers: if the US refuses to replenish the air force's losses, Israel will find itself weakened just when Iran and its allies Hezbollah, Syria, and Hamas will likely attack. Since these attacks will mostly use missiles and rockets, Israel's civilian population will be at great risk. With a weakened air force Israel may not be able to deal with these attacks effectively.

Even if there was no threat from President Obama, such an attack on Iran may be too dangerous. If the losses of aircraft and pilots are serious enough, a US replenishment plan may not be timely or effective. Another problem is that bunker busters are probably not powerful enough to destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities.

This leaves a third option: attack Iran using tactical nukes. The disadvantage is obvious: Israel is likely to be proclaimed a criminal state by the rest of the world. The Arab world will be in an uproar, at least for a short while.

But, if the attack is massive enough, that will be it. Since Israel is already condemned for crimes it never committed and is denied the right to self-defense its position may actually improve: lots of enemies might not be willing to seriously mess with a country that has used nukes to defend itself.

I doubt that Iran's allies will attack Israel after Iran's capabilities are diminished and after Israel has demonstrated its resolve to destroy its enemies. Such an attack will also cause serious internal problems in Iran which has large, unhappy minorities fighting a guerrilla/terror war against the regime.

The third option will solve everyone's problem with Iran and take a great burden off Obama's shoulders.

Maybe that is exactly what our President is trying to do: make it inevitable that Israel attacks Iran in self-defense and make sure it's a nuclear attack by denying Israel assistance or replenishment of losses.

A scary and cynical policy but not beyond what our President has already demonstrated being capable of.