We’ll give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt on the “red line” issue, assuming that his insistence on a US deadline for military action against Iran is motivated by genuine fear for the safety of his nation, not by a desire to insert himself into the American political process.
We’re still not convinced that the so-called red line is a sound idea, not to mention the spectacle of an Israeli leader loudly insisting on it.
Whether the red line is determined by an actual calendar date or by a certain technological threshold, is it advisable for the US to set such a line publicly?
Militarily, it makes no sense to announce to one’s potential enemy the date on which it can expect an attack. Since the time of Alexander the Great and before, the element of surprise has always been of paramount strategic value.
Israel, which has exploited surprise many times in its own conflicts, should know this as well as anyone.
If the red line is determined by a technological threshold, it amounts to the same thing. Assuming that US intelligence knows precisely how far along the Iranians are in their nuclear development, the announcement of a red line by the US (as Netanyahu would have it) would telegraph to Iran precisely when the US would attack.
Iran would do its best to be ready for this attack, of course, and also to inflict the maximum possible damage on its attackers when it comes.
Would the US have acted any differently had we known a week in advance that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941?
To set a red line is also to tie American hands, to limit its ability to remain flexible in a very fluid situation. Once a date, or a development point, is set and announced, how could the US credibly step back in the event that other options open at the last minute?
No leader on the brink of war should have his or her hands tied.
So why is Netanyahu making such a big deal of the red line?
We think he is acting out of concern for his people. Although his recent comments sounded a lot like he was scolding President Obama — and were thus construed by many as pro-Romney manipulations — Netanyahu is an experienced and savvy politician. We give him enough credit to know that he would not serve Israel well by inserting his views into an already divisive American election.
But if Netanyahu is meddling in our election, his idea hardly seems to be gaining traction. Even Mitt Romney last week made it clear that he holds to the same general red line as Obama: “Iran may not have a nuclear weapon.”
None of this minimizes the real danger that the Iranian regime poses to Israel and to the West, nor is it to say that Netanyahu’s sense of insecurity is unjustified.
If the US were doing a better job keeping Israel in the loop on Iran, we don’t believe there would be much public conversation about red lines or deadlines.
Our advice to our own country — regardless of who wins the November election — is to set up a meeting with Netanyahu, and soon. Let him know what we know about the Iranian weapons program. Perhaps even let him know — quietly and far away from the public eye — what our actual red line might be.
That would quiet things down in the rational world and — even more important — keep the Iranians guessing as to what might be coming their way, and when.
Copyright © 2012 by the Intermountain Jewish News
