Israel will not strike Iran in the near future

Israel will not strike Iran without securing Washington’s approval. The Obama administration expects the sanctions on the Islamic Republic to work.  As the US economy starts to improve and the troops return home the last thing Americans want is a new war.

The mood in Israel is different from that of the US. Iran’s suspect nuclear program is considered an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.

Is alarm over Iran fully justified? Through its Western allies, the Zionist state has already forced Tehran into a corner.  The Iranian regime has been isolated, sanctioned and demonized.

On other fronts, regional developments are serving Israel’s interests.

Syria, Iran’s closest ally, is unraveling under a popular uprising. In losing the support of the Damascus regime, Iran’s influence in the Middle East has been significantly diminished.

Iran’s proxy resistance forces in Lebanon and in Gaza are facing new challenges.  A worsening economy in Syria and Iran slows the aid and funding to Hizbullah and Hamas. These two resistance forces are now exposed to rival parties at home, and across borders.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have become assertive with Iran. Their insecure rulers would like to see Iran humiliated by an Israeli strike.

While declaring the eleventh hour and muscle flexing, Israel is actually gaining much relief on a separate strategic front. The Iran crisis detracts the attention of the international community from the 45-year long Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territories.

Western sanctions and periodic sounding of the alarm bell seem to be having results.

Why would Israel, an advanced nuclear state, consider striking Iran? It would be strange for the Zionist state to launch a war on a non-border state, several times its size and with no history of invading other countries. It would be equally strange for Iran to nuke Israel where millions of Palestinians reside.

Israelis who wish to gamble with their country’s future seem to be anxiety ridden.  Many Israelis have irrational fear of political Islam, and the Iranian regime in particular.  They liken Iran to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. The comparison is groundless.

Supporters of military action believe that a swift victory would shake the ideological, military and political foundation of the Islamic Republic.

But victory is far from certain. An Israeli strike on Iran could easily lead to a regional war with unpredictable consequences. The cost of a protracted war may be devastating for all sides.

If the strike failed to significantly delay or destroy Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu might not survive politically.

If Israel fails to demolish the nuclear facilities, it would give the Iranian regime a boost.  Iran would acquire an added justification to accelerate its nuclear program. The pro-democracy opposition in Iran would be weakened.

In going to war with Iran, Israel would be ignoring basic US sentiments. An Israeli unilateral adventure in Iran may startle most Americans, but not the extreme right wing.  The Obama administraion is desperately trying to cut spending and cut back its military presence in the Middle East. Americans are already struggling with rising oil prices. A war with Iran might suddenly cause a doubling of the cost of oil, with recessionary impact on US and world economy.

A blundering strike would tarnish the image of Israel in the West. US military assistance for Israel would start to look questionable.

As things stand now, Israel will most likely opt for sanctions rather than war. Washington’s punish-and-talk strategy with Iran will work for the near future. But the long term solution is a nuclear-free region.

GOP need to revise approach to Middle East

The leading Republican presidential candidates have a one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
During the Florida presidential debate, a Palestinian American asked the contenders how they would help bring peace to Palestine and Israel when most GOP candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people.
Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich reacted defensively.
Romney said, “Well, the reason that there’s not peace” is the “leadership of the Palestinian people” whose intent is “the elimination of Israel.” He added that Palestinians do not “want a two-state solution,” and that President Obama “threw Israel under the bus” by criticizing Israeli settlements and advocating the “1967 borders.”


Has the former governor never heard of the 2002 peace plan of 22 Arab states, which proposes to normalize relations with Israel based on a two-state solution?
Gingrich continued the assault. Palestine “was technically an invention of the late 1970s,” he stated. Before that, the Palestinians “were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese, or Egyptian, or Jordanian.”
Has the former House speaker never heard of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which calls for “the establishment in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people”? At that time, 90 percent of the residents of Palestine were Palestinians.
Rick Santorum is no better. He recently said that the West Bank was “part of Israel.”
Ron Paul, as usual, thinks differently. He would cut off aid to Israel, and he denounces as “war propaganda” the discussion of whether Israel should bomb Iran.
Unlike Paul, the other candidates are intent on soliciting support from the American Jewish community and exploiting the fear factor of Islam throughout the country.
The majority of Jewish Americans have, in the past, voted — and generously financed — the Democratic presidential candidates. In 2008, 78 percent of the Jewish vote went to Obama. But in this electoral campaign, Republican strategists see an opportunity to gain a bigger share of that vote.
The candidates are also trading on the widespread hostility toward Islam. Gingrich recently said: “I think we need to have a government that respects our religions.” He then went on to criticize Obama for being tolerant. “I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every other religion on the planet,” said Gingrich. “I’d like him to respect our religion.” He seemed to forget that the U.S. Constitution forbids a state religion, and that people of all faiths practice here.
Gingrich, Romney and Santorum often point to Hamas as the dominating face of Palestinian society. What they don’t understand is how Israel’s expanding settlements and continued occupation of Arab land have created the conditions for the resurgence of Hamas.
Romney and Gingrich seem to be making progress in winning the Jewish vote. They have portrayed Obama as a Palestinian ally. But in turning their backs on the peace process, they are serving neither Israel’s security nor U.S. interests in the region.
Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a social scientist and political commentator on the Middle East, is the former secretary of the Middle East for the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.