Safe Mode: On
Netanyahu Pushes the United States to Make War on Iran: Will Obama Say No?

by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States last week was capped off on Sunday with the broadcast of a previously-taped interview on Fox New Sunday. The interview covered a range of important topics, including the state of the U.S.-Israel relationship and prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. But it is the Prime Minister's remarks on Iran that deserve special attention -- for these remarks suggest that Netanyahu is embarked on an extremely dangerous course. Netanyahu is pushing the United States to take eventual military action against Iran.

Three points regarding Iran from Netanyahu's interview with Fox News Sunday warrant particular attention.

* First, Netanyahu said that CIA Director Leon Panetta was "probably right" in his judgment that new United Nations and U.S. unilateral sanctions against Iran will not "stop" Iran's nuclear program -- which Netanyahu characterized as "racing to develop atomic weapons" for the explicit purpose of "Israel's destruction."

* Second, Netanyahu argued that the Islamic Republic's "irrational regime" cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons capability, because "you can't rely on the fact that they'll obey the calculations of cost and benefit that have governed all nuclear powers since the rise of the nuclear age after Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Netanyahu disdained the plausibility of "containing" a "nuclear Iran": "I think that's a mistake, and I think that people fall into a misconception." Indeed, Netanyahu went on to compare Iran to "other radicals like the Taliban" (sic) who sent terrorists to attack the United States without regard to the consequences and characterized the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran as "the ultimate terrorist threat."

* Third, while noting that "the Jewish state was set up to defend Jewish lives and we always reserve the right to defend ourselves," Netanyahu asserted that it was only the threat of U.S. military strikes that might prompt Iranian decision-makers to stop their alleged advance toward building nuclear weapons: "There has only been one time that Iran actually stopped the program. That was when it feared U.S. military action." (We take this as a reference to the U.S. National Intelligence Council's December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on the Iranian nuclear program, which famously judged "with high confidence" that "Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" in the fall of 2003, "primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.")

Netanyahu's remarks about Iran are noteworthy, for at least two reasons.

First, there is an inherent contradiction in the official Israeli analysis of Iranian decision-making on nuclear matters. On one hand, Iran is deemed to be so "irrational" that it cannot be relied on to follow the same sorts of cost-benefit calculations that have presumably guided the decisions of states actually possessing nuclear weapons since the end of World War II. On the other hand, Iranian decision-makers are judged to be sufficiently "rational," in the instrumental sense, to make logical risk-benefit calculations about the management of their country's nuclear program. (As the 2007 NIE held, "Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs.")

We continue to hold that there is no evidence Tehran has taken a decision to weaponize its developing nuclear capabilities, and continue to note that the highest levels of political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic seem to have ruled out such a decision -- not least on religious grounds. But the contradiction in Netanyahu's position affirms our assessment that the Iranian nuclear program is hardly an "existential threat" to Israel. The real problem, from an Israeli perspective, is that a nuclear-capable Iran might, at the margins, begin to impose some limits on Israel's current freedom to use military force unilaterally, wherever it wants, and for whatever purpose it favors.

Second, while preserving the option of Israeli military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets, Netanyahu is shifting the onus for forestalling the further development of Iran's nuclear capabilities onto the prospect of U.S. military action. In this context, we note President Obama's response to a question about the possibility of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran, in an interview with Israel's Channel Two television, following his meeting with Netanyahu last week: "I think the relationship between the US and Israel is sufficiently strong that neither of us try to surprise each other. . . . We try to coordinate on issues of mutual concern and that approach is one Prime Minister Netanyahu is committed to." It is unlikely that Obama would have made such a statement unless he believed he had a commitment from Netanyahu not to "surprise" him by taking unilateral military action against Iran.

Based on our own conversations with well-connected Israelis, we believe that there is an elaborated, long-term logic to Netanyahu's approach. In essence, Netanyahu is minimizing the risk of an Israeli attack on Iran in the near term to maximize pressure on the United States to take military action against the Islamic Republic in the medium term -- perhaps in the next 12-18 months, after a critical mass of opinion concludes that international and U.S. sanctions are not "working." At that point -- having already dismissed the plausibility of containment, the Prime Minister has positioned himself to press President Obama not to "waste time" with a futile strategy and move on to serious consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

At least in theory, Obama could say "no" to Netanyahu's exhortations -- but that "no" would become public knowledge within roughly 15 minutes of its ostensibly private delivery. And, if our assessment of timing is correct, Obama's "no" would become public knowledge as the President's re-election bid is gearing up in a serious way.

If Obama says anything other than "no" to Netanyahu, the United States will be committed to military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. A U.S. attack on Iran would almost certainly result in a much broader confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic -- with residual U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq at high risk, the strategic outcomes from our military adventures in both of those countries in even deeper jeopardy, profoundly negative effects on the global economy, and international perceptions that reckless and "rogue" U.S. behavior in the strategically vital Middle East was an idiosyncratic feature of George W. Bush's presidency forever shattered. These eminently foreseeable consequences would have a devastating impact on America's standing in one of the world's most important regions.

So, between now and the next U.S. presidential election in 2012, the most important question about America's Iran policy is this: What will President Obama say, when Prime Minister Netanyahu comes calling again?
Flynt Leverett directs the Iran Project at the New America Foundation, where he is also a Senior Research Fellow. Additionally, he teaches at Pennsylvania State University’s School of International Affairs. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy. In September 2010, she will also take up an appointment as Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. The text above is an excerpt from an article which was first published in The Race for Iran on 11 July 2010 under a Creative Commons license

Click to view image: 'Netanyahu Pushes the United States to Make War on '

Added: Jul-12-2010 Occurred On: Jul-12-2010
By: Abaddon666
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, News
Tags: Netanyahu, Pushes, the, United, States, to, Make, War, on, Iran:, Will, Obama, Say, No?
Views: 17104 | Comments: 14 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 2 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Like I said yesterday everyone wants us to shed our blood but wont be willing to shed theirs. Screw Israel for even making such a remark about the safety of our soldiers.

    Posted Jul-12-2010 By 

    (4) | Report

  • Iran must have an unlimited supply of yellow cake then .

    Posted Jul-12-2010 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Eva_Destruction' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Obama doesn't have the balls to strike war on his own muslim brothers,it's against his muslim faith.

    Posted Jul-13-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Iran hasnt attacked a country in 200 years. Can Israel say the same? Go figure who is the trouble maker. Its very clear to me.

    Posted Aug-2-2010 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • If Israel wanna attack iran, then they should do it on their own...

    Posted Dec-9-2011 By 

    (2) | Report

  • @hlabrake. Well said.

    Posted Mar-15-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • If Israël is such a great allie of the U.S. than why didn't Israël help in iraq and afghanistan.No the U.S. is only good to do the dirty work!Long live the U.S.!

    Posted Sep-1-2013 By 

    (1) | Report

  • The Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader of Iran, has very clearly stated nukes are against God. God forbids it. He is their supreme fucking leader. He has no way of changing that position as he clearly says it is against Gods will.

    I really don't see how Iran can develop a nuke and not face internal trouble more so than it has in recent times.

    Posted Feb-10-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • No i dont think he will, i dont believe he will go all in, but they have already played around with the Idea for a very long time. its been on the news for the past year. thats how the Zionists normally starts their wars.

    the end game here.

    a large scale attack on Iran, means Russia will retaliate what im worried about is the 150 nukes Israel (dosent have)it will set fire to the middle eas, but it will also end Israel as we know it.But "top Jews" will just repopulate America More..

    Posted Jul-14-2013 By 

    (0) | Report

  • the puppet master pulling the strings. Netanyahu doesnt get it yet we're broke ..

    Posted Apr-3-2015 By 

    (0) | Report