Dr.
Robert O. Freeman, professor emeritus at Baltimore Hebrew University
and author of several books on Israeli politics and foreign policy,
was a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins in 2009 when he wrote
"Decision Time for Israel on Iran?" for Israel
Horizons
(MeretzUSA.org).
Freeman
began by saying "The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Shiite
religious dictatorship, where power is in the hand of conservative
clerics." (One might almost think that this would be enough to
seal Iran's fate, without going further.) Freeman notes that Iran
has its own troubles with unemployment and other economic problems.
(He assumes that the disputed 2009 elections proved that President
Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad pursues policies that most Iranians reject, but
is informed enough to know that Supreme Leader Khamenei may be a more
critical factor in determining what Iran does vis-a-vis Israel.)
"Israel
faces a choice," Freeman writes, "Would it acquiesce in
Iran's likely acquisition of nuclear arms or would it launch a
unilateral attack on Iran, thereby putting it at odds with its main
strategic ally, the United States?" While emphasizing one
of
the key elements -- U.S. support or lack of it -- Freeman does not
mention other possible downsides to Israel's taking the attack
option, such as possible retaliation and blow-back from Iran as well
as other nations (and non-state actors) of the region. He places
confidence in Israel's capacity to resist missile attacks with its
"Iron Dome" system. (One should recall that as ineffectual
as Saddam's Scud missiles proved to be, they were also not
susceptible to interception by vaunted U.S. or Israeli
counter-measures.)
Remember,
Freeman's article came not long after the advent of the Obama
administration. He said, "To be sure, Obama began his policy of
engagment with Iran carefully, so he wouldn't give either Israel or
America's Sunni Arab allies the impression that he was selling them
out as part of a rapprochement with Iran. "'We need to ratchet
up tough but direct diplomacy with Iran, '" Freeman quoted the
President-elect, "'making very clear to them that their
development of nuclear weapons would be unacceptable.'" He
laments that Obama's "friendly tone" was not reciprocated
by Iran's officials, but notes the "Khamenei...did say that if
the US changed its attitude, Iran would change its attitude as well."
-- yet wanted to see removal of the crippling sanctions and an end to
support for Israel, which was never going to happen.
Freeman
then outlines some of the diplomatic moves that took place in tandem
with increases in the bite of sanctions. The real point of his piece
was to ask the rhetorical question "How long will the Obama
administration give Iran...?" He projected that failing
substantive progress, Israel might launch a unilateral attack
"sometime in 2010," without U.S. approval or encouragement.
He held out the hope that a "proper relationship" between
Obama and Netanyahu on Iran might allow the Israel leader to grant
further "concessions," such as his having agreed to "the
establishment of a Palestinian state." Perhaps, he speculates
"Iran may prove to be an unwitting catalyst in the
Israel-Palestinian peace process."
We
are now three years further down the road. Iran endures ever greater
pressure from economic sanctions, has been the target of devastating
cyber-attacks and has had scientists assassinated, yet, Iran is
further along with its nuclear programs. Israel has not seen fit to
attack, and still cannot gain U.S. concurrence that this would be
anything but a calamitous move. Palestinians have made little
progress toward statehood, except what they unilaterally won from
parts of the United Nations community, despite Israeli and U.S.
opposition. I wonder if Professor Freeman is readying another article
along the same lines; or perhaps he will just ask that the original
one be reprinted, since nothing has really changed.
The sound you
don't
hear is the sound of logjams breaking up.
No comments:
Post a Comment