U.S., Israel sending mixed messages on Iran

U.S., Israel sending mixed messages on Iran

By Paul Richter and Edmund Sanders

	Putin

Is the move a strategy or just a bluff by the Jewish State? Some annalysts claim they can prove the latter

ASHINGTON — (MCT) The Obama administration is bluntly warning Israel about the danger of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, but it is far from clear whether the allies are truly at odds over a core policy question or orchestrating an elaborate campaign to wring concessions from the Islamic Republic.

Both countries say that at least for now, tightening a web of economic sanctions around Iran's vital oil exports is the best way to pressure Tehran into serious negotiations about its nuclear program, which the U.S. and its allies suspect is aimed at mastering the know-how to build a bomb.

But Israel regards a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, and in recent weeks officials have suggested they may attack its nuclear facilities before the program reaches a point of no return.

Early Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement that Iran denied a request for access to a site where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency suspects explosives testing related to a nuclear weapon took place, news services reported. The statement was released after the IAEA team left on a return flight to Vienna. The unusual timing, shortly after midnight in Europe, reflected the urgency of the communique.

With Tom Donilon, the White House national security advisor, visiting Israel over the weekend and James R. Clapper, the top U.S. intelligence official, due in this week, some Israelis suggested that Washington doesn't appreciate the threat their nation faces and is undermining the chance of success. Public signs of strain in the relationship are beginning to emerge.

After meeting separately Tuesday in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona told reporters that "there is clearly significant tension that now exists on how to approach this whole issue."

"It's not helpful if there is well-publicized tension between the United States and Israel, and we would like to see the administration and Israel agreeing on a course of action toward a goal that we both share," McCain said.

At times, U.S. officials have appeared worried that overheated war talk could ignite a conflict and sought to tamp it down.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday that diplomacy and economic sanctions were beginning to have an effect, and that they were the "most prudent path."

But the administration has struggled "to find the right mix of threat and persuasion," said Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department official now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Wildly oscillating" messages "are playing out in the media in ways that are not helpful to whatever the diplomatic aims of the Israelis and the Americans might be," she said.

U.S. sanctions aimed at Iran's central bank make it harder for the nation to export oil, and pending legislation would cut Iran out of a global clearinghouse for financial transactions. Last month, the European Union imposed an embargo on Iranian oil. Fear of hard times to come has led to hoarding and a steep drop in the value of Iran's currency.

Tehran has accused Israel of being behind bombings that have killed Iranian nuclear scientists. Israel charged that Iran was behind plots aimed at Israeli targets last week in India, Georgia and Thailand.

After days of signals that Tehran might return to the bargaining table, a senior Iranian military official warned Tuesday that Iran could launch a preemptive strike if it believed its enemies were preparing an attack.

Cliff Kupchan, a former State Department official now with the risk analysis firm Eurasia Group, said the Obama administration "is using the real possibility of an Israeli attack to both push sanctions and to wring concessions out of Iran. And the same time, U.S. military and other officials are publicly and privately telling Israel not to go, because they think it's a truly bad idea."

Israeli officials insist publicly that the two countries are working closely together.

"Not only is there no crisis, but coordination and understandings are tightening," said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon. "We see nearly eye-to-eye on the course of action as well as on the whole."

Israeli news reports have portrayed the flurry of visits by top American security officials as an attempt to dissuade Israel or, in the words of one published report, to "implore" it not to attack Iran.

Whether Israel really is considering an airstrike is far from clear. For one thing, Netanyahu does not appear to have convinced his security Cabinet or the military that bombing Iran is the proper course.

"The problem for Netanyahu is that some military insiders are still against it," said an Israeli official, who did not want to be identified when speaking about the sensitive issue.

Several high-ranking military and intelligence officials who retired last year, including Meir Dagan, who headed the spy agency Mossad, have come out publicly against preemptive military action.

To some, the mixed messages appear to be part of a grander strategy.

"It's a shell game in which the Europeans play the 'good cop,' the U.S. is the 'bad cop' and Israel is the 'crazy cop,'" said Cameron Brown, international affairs columnist for the Jerusalem Post. "The idea is to appear so irrational that you scare the other side into making concessions. It's a strategy Israel has used for a long time."

A military official said the "crazy Israel" strategy has served as an effective deterrent over the years.

In 2006, after the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, Israel reacted by invading and fighting all the way to Beirut. In 2009, about 1,400 Palestinians were killed during an assault on the Gaza Strip. Though Israel was accused of responding disproportionately in both cases, military officials say they served as important deterrents against future rocket attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza.

If Israel is preparing to attack Iran, it does not appear to be preparing for retaliation.

Israeli intelligence officials recently estimated that as many as 200,000 missiles are aimed at Israel by Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. In comparison, about 4,000 rockets struck Israel during the 2006 Lebanon war.

Yet defenses are not being shored up. About 40% of Israel's population lacks gas masks, and 25% doesn't have access to adequate bomb shelters. Israel's minister of home front defense is leaving to become ambassador to China and no replacement has been named.

Israel's short-range rocket-defense shield, known as Iron Dome, barely protects the sparsely populated south. Planned deployments to cover Tel Aviv and key military facilities are in limbo because of budget shortages.

Meanwhile, the government is debating whether to trim its defense budget, leading military officials to warn that their ability to train reserves and defend the country is at risk.

"The scope of the failure to protect the home front … is almost incomprehensible," Haaretz columnist Sefi Rachlevsky wrote Tuesday.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0212/israel_washington_iran_strategy.php3?printer_friendly