We cannot deny that sanctions and various ideas to intensify them might work against Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons. No, we cannot deny it. But facts are facts. Sanctions havent worked. China and Russia dont want them to work. All of the rhetoric by US presidential candidates, by Jewish organizations and Israeli diplomats havent worked. An infinitely unfolding cascade of scenarios under which sanctions will be made to work fools no one except those who promote them. Weve been watching these scenarios for at least a decade they havent worked.
Now, in this presidential election, we hear many new scenarios. They strike us as pointless and sometimes gutless. For example, five former secretaries of state including some who, of course, did nothing to stop Iran when they held power would have us talk with Iran. Yes, talk with a country that preaches genocide. How convenient if its such a good idea, why didnt they follow it when they were in office? For the same reason that talking to Hitler never worked, and that talking to Yasir Arafat, another preacher of genocide, never worked.
Otherwise sensible people truly believed, for many years no less, that talking to Arafat would work. But the same Middle East, anti-Israel mentality that controlled Arafat also controls Iran. To them, diplomacy is but another tactic in the pursuit of Israels destruction. They cant reach a permanent settlement. Its not in them.
Then there is latest scenario from Dennis Ross, perhaps the primary advocate of talking with Arafat, when he, Ross, held power in the Clinton administration.
Ross, acknowledging that China and Russia have diluted UN sanctions against Iran by saying they would veto strong ones, has now concocted a scenario under which the Saudis will leverage the Chinese into isolating Iran. Dream on, Dennis. The Saudis have done nothing, nada, zero, efes, to counter Irans nuclear program. Suddenly, theyre gong to pressure China, the worlds largest economy? Dream on.
Another scenario now set forth is to wait until next June, when Iran is scheduled to have a presidential election. The scenario here is that Irans internal dissidents can be strengthened and Ahmadinejad can be voted out. Not only is this unlikely, but, far more critically, it is culturally obtuse.
It is not Ahmadinejad who personally threatens Israel. It is the entire Iranian regime, whose ultimate source of power and authority is not its president, but its chief ayatollah. That doesnt change whether Ahmadinejad wins or loses. Even with a total overthrow of the Iranian regime which is not happening it would still be unclear whether a new leader, even if not a fanatic, would give up Irans nuclear program. No, all these scenarios grasp at straws.
We readily grant that the military option against Iran is frightening. The least threatening question is how much of Irans nuclear program an attack on it would actually destroy. An attack would at least retard it and make clear that restarting it would come at high danger to Iran.
What is much more difficult to predict is the scope of Irans (or Hezbollahs) response to an attack, and the scope of Israels (or the USs or Europes) counterresponse. What the relevant actors mainly, Israel and the US must balance is the unknowable consequences of military action against Iran vs. the knowable consequences of doing nothing (except devising new scenarios for countering Iran). The knowable consequences are not just a nuclear Iran, but a nuclear Iran that will use its weapons, or distribute them to terrorists who will.
For those who find this farfetched, consider that Iran is already arming terrorists to the hilt. The fact that Hezbollah, which is armed by Iran, says it will retaliate for an attack on Iran speaks for itself. Then there is Hamas, armed by Iran, which has fired thousands of missiles on Israel.
The attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas are militarily unprovoked. However, they dont need to be. Both Hezbollah and Hamas, and their backer, Iran, consider Israels mere existence a provocation, deserving of military response. Check out the latest threat against the life of Paul McCartney, merely for planning a performance in Israel.
All this is the bread-and-butter of the Middle East conflict today: Iran and her proxies are bent on Israels destruction. And Irans nuclear progress is leaving diplomats and weapons inspectors saying that time is running out, that Iran is almost at the point of no return. Even they are saying, its now or never.
They might not define now as this month or next, but we do. We believe that the conventional wisdom that the US might turn a blind eye to an Israeli attack after the American election is something Israel should ignore. If there is to be an attack, the best time is before the election. Before the election, it would be next to impossible for Obama or McCain or Bush to do anything but support an Israeli attack.
That will change the minute the election passes. For among the relatively less severe, predictable consequences of an attack on Iran will be a steep hike in already steep gas prices.
Consider this, too: The Kadima election puts Ehud Olmert, very paradoxically, in the most powerful position of his tenure. Olmert can resign from the head of his party immediately after the election, but, by law, he cannot resign from the head of the Israeli government. Neither, by law, can any member or party to the government resign. The new leader of Kadima will need weeks to form a new government. Bottom line: No political considerations will restrict the scope of action of Olmert or of his government for the coming weeks.
The indifference or weakness that leads some leaders and diplomats now to say, well just have to accommodate ourselves to a nuclear Iran, is a counsel of despair we do not share. The time to put an end to, or at least a serious dent in, Irans nuclear program is overdue.
