Posted August 23 2008
FUD on Israel attacking Iran
In his weekly opinion column on August 22, M.J. Rosenberg argues that Israel would endanger Jews living outside of Israel by attacking Iran. Furthermore, he rattles off a frightening laundry list of negative outcomes which he claims would result from such an attack:
“An Israeli attack on Iran—absent an imminent threat of attack from Iran—is a terrible idea for many reasons. It would not succeed in eliminating Iran’s nuclear program but would almost surely prompt Iran to both opt out of the international inspection regime and redouble its efforts to produce a bomb. It would unite Arabs and Muslims against the United States (they know that Israel could not attack Iran without implicit or explicit U.S. approval). It would have a disastrous effect on the American effort next door in Iraq, eliminating recently made gains and endangering 130,000 American troops (this is why Secretary of Defense Gates so vehemently opposes an Israeli attack). And it would end the Arab-Israeli peace process, even putting the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan at risk. And, no small thing, an attack would lead to a deadly Hezbollah missile onslaught against Israel, joined no doubt by Hamas in the south.”
The problem with this ominous litany of negativity is that there is little evidence that any of it is true.
Israel has, on two previous occasions, executed attacks against specific targets in Arab countries to curtail their nuclear weapons programs — an attack agianst the Osirak reactor near Baghdad, Iraq in 1981, and an attack against a Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007. In both cases, the attack was successful and the weapons program in question essentially sent back to square one. This is rather strong evidence that Israel would, in fact, be able to attack and seriously curtail, if not destroy, Iran’s nuclear program if they felt it necessary to do so to protect their own security. It is also rather likely that, understanding full well the risks about which Rosenberg is concerned, Israel would not embark upon such an attack without a great deal of confidence about its likelihood of success. While Israel, alas, may not be all that good at fighting ground wars in Lebanon, they have an excellent record of successful targeted strikes when it the chips are down.
As for Rosenberg’s worry about Iran opting out of the international inspection regime, in case he hasn’t noticed, they are already refusing to cooperate with IAEA inspectors.
Arabs and Muslims were not “united against the United States” when Israel attacked Iraq’s reactor or when it attacked Syria’s. The reason for this is a political reality which Rosenberg seems content to ignore… Although the Arab countries surrounding Israel are opposed to its possession of nuclear weapons, they are even more opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons by any of their Arab brethren. As much as they hate Israel, they are savvy enough to recognize that Israel would only use its nuclear weapons in a doomsday scenario. They also realize that such a doomsday scenario will never occur unless some other nation in the region threatens Israel with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). They realize that if a country with a government like Iran’s manages to get its hands on nuclear weapons, Israel will, indeed, be threatened with WMDs. And, finally, They understand that a nuclear conflict between Israel and any other country in the region will wreak inconceivable devastation not just on those two countries, but on the entire region.
Rosenberg provides no evidence to back up his assertion that an attack by Israel on an Iranian nuclear facility would have a “disastrous effect on the American effort next door in Iraq.” While it is certainly likely that an Israeli attack against Iran would have wider impact in the region, the extent to which such an attack would impact the effort in Iraq is exceedingly difficult to quantify, and attempts to quantify it which offer no supporting evidence whatsoever cannot be taken seriously.
The attack on Iraq’s reactor did not end the Arab-Israeli peace process and did not damage the recently signed peace treaty with Egypt. The attack on Syria’s reactor did not end the Arab-Israeli peace process and did not damage either the Egypt or Jordan treaties. There is, in short, no evidence whatsoever that a legitimate attack by Israel against an Iranian nuclear weapons program would threaten the peace process or existing treaties between Israel and its neighbors.
In case Rosenberg missed it, Hamas was already bombing Israel on a daily basis before they entered into the current “cease-fire” whose only purpose, as far as Hamas is concerned, is to allow them to recover and rearm so that they can resume their attacks later, even stronger than before. In case Rosenberg missed it, Hezbollah is rearming itself aggressively in Lebanon despite empty promises from the United Nations to prevent that from happening, promises which Israel and anyone else with a modicum of intelligence knew were bunk all along. Hezbollah will use eventually use its weapons against Israel, and Hamas will eventually use its weapons against Israel; the question is not whether they will use them, but rather when, and to suggest that Israel should postpone an attack against Iran that is necessary for its own security, merely for the sake of postponing the inevitable aggression from Hezbollah and/or Hamas, is just silly.
That brings us full circle, back to Rosenberg’s primary thesis, which is that an Israeli attack against Iran would provoke terrorists to attack Jews outside of Israel. Surely if Rosenberg felt that such an attack were necessary for Israel’s security, he would be willing to accept the increased risk, so his argument actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the safety of those of us living in the diaspora. Rather, what his argument comes down to is that he does not think that an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program is essential for its security, and that he does not trust the Israeli government to make such a determination. However, given the choice between trusting the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus to make such a determination, and trusting someone who has never served in any military capacity or even in any elected office, I’m afraid I’m going to have to go with the Israelis on this one.
Were Rosenberg to explicitly argue against the necessity of an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear program, and were he to present evidence supporting the lack of need for such an attack, then there might actually be a useful discussion to have. Instead, Rosenberg obfuscates the issue and uses FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) in an effort to convince the reader to support a position which he doesn’t even have the courtesy to spell out explicitly. This type of fear-mongering has no place in civilized debate on this or any other issue.
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
5 Comments currently posted. 
Leonard Schwartzburd says:
Anonymous says:
You’re really not right about this.
It’s not even clear that Israel has the capability to attack Iranian facilities and actually destroy the program. The bunker busting bombs that the U.S. provided to Israel for the Lebanon War were a dry run for what would be necessary to attack and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, much of which are very deep underground. The key point that anyone who followed the outcome of the Lebanon war: They did not work in the way they were supposed to.
The Iranian nuclear program does not have the same set up as the Iraqi or nascent Syrian program. It has many different sites, and probably there are some sites that we don’t even know about. Syria had one important site, and Iraq had one site, the Kirkuk reactor. Israel / the U.S. would have to simultaneously bomb all of the sites in Iran that we know of, and hope that we hit enough to set back the program a few years. That really is the best possible scenario for a successful military attack: Setting back the program a few years.
So, while you place a large amount of confidence in the IAF’s ability to get the job done, I think you misunderstand the kind of military problem we face.
And to think that Iran wouldn’t initiate more violence in Iraq, attack U.S. ships stationed in the gulf, and order its proxies next door to Israel into an all-out war with Israel, is just plain naive. War doesn’t go one way. Any serious cost-benefit analysis of an attack on Iran MUST include these costs.
Jonathan Kamens says:
All of those are important considerations.
I trust the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus to take them all into account when deciding how to proceed.
I think they are in a better position to do so than M.J. Rosenberg, who is in no position to do so.
I think that it does absolutely no good, and quite a lot of harm, for people to spread FUD like Rosenberg did in his column.
Incidentally, I doubt that you, Rosenberg or I has access to the kind of information that is needed to determine the “best possible scenario” of an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program. Furthermore, considering that the worst possible scenario is an Iranian nuclear missile or two exploding inside Israel, I’ll take your supposed “best possible scenario” over that, thank you very much. And aside from that, if the best we can do is to set them back by a few years, then in a few years we may have to do it again, and a few years after that we may have to do it again, until they get the message that Israel just isn’t going to let them build nuclear weapons no matter how many times they try.
Obviously, resolving the situation through diplomatic means would be far preferable to such a scenario (well, I think that’s obvious to Obama, Biden, most Americans, and most Israelis; it apparently isn’t obvious to Bush or McCain, at least not that they’d admit to during the campaign). That’s not the question. The question is, if there is a real risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and they can’t be stopped through diplomatic means, then what choices are left?
Anonymous says:
Thanks for the reply.
If a diplomatic solution is far preferable, why do we find it necessary to lay the rhetorical groundwork for an attack by undercutting those who raise alarm bells? Because we don’t trust that the diplomatic solution will work, so we are already — in our minds — committed to a military attack. This is dangerous thinking, and much too Bush-like for my tastes.
The “best possible scenario” of an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities has been written about widely in the press, and has been underscored by numerous public interviews with military officials both in Israel and America. It is also widely known on Capitol Hill that the Israelis do not yet have the capability to carry out a successful attack on Iranian facilities (Dick Cheney’s office has been key in pushing for an American attack for precisely this reason). Success, again, meaning the weapons program is set back for a few years.
The real problem with an attack is that, without a major ground campaign to root out the facilities and bring about regime change, the weapons program will move forward faster than ever. Following a military attack, there is no way that Iranian moderates will be convinced to turn back from the bomb — a military attack must either go all out and include regime change, which I don’t think we can do, or we must go the diplomatic route. Either direction in a half-assed way is asking for an Iranian bomb.
Since we don’t possess either the military capability nor the domestic approval for another Iraq, we have to go the diplomatic route all out. That’s how I see it, anyways.
Last bit on Rosenberg — the man is a serious foreign policy expert who is absolutely in a position to know the realistic assessments from Israeli military officials and the U.S. Congress. It was his organization that provided a good deal of the background and initial policy briefs that the Clinton White House used during the Oslo process. He’s one of the good guys — and it makes me uncomfortable to see him attacked in this way.
Jonathan Kamens says:
Rosenberg could have written about the actual risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and the time frame in which it’s feasible that they might do so. He could have written about the likelihood of a successful Israeli military attack against the Iranian nuclear program. He may very well be in a position to be able to write intelligently about either of these topics.
What he chose to write, instead, was FUD. As I explained in my article, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support most of what he claimed would happen if Israel attacks Iran, and there is much evidence to suggest the opposite. And so, serious or not, expert or not, in a position to know or not, Rosenberg’s column is a shunda, and he shouldn’t have written it.
His column was, frankly, exactly the kind of fear-mongering for which so many people (including me) despise the neoconservatives, only from the other side.
Jonathan Kamens is spot right on. Bravo. If M.J. Rosenberg fears that Jews in the diaspora will be attacked if Israel preempts Irans nuclear weapons efforts, and that makes him personally fearful a simple solution would be for him to move to Israel. Such a move could possibly evoke a change in perspective.
Leonard Schwartzburd