I'm not sure how many of us were thinking that Netanyahu would set a literal red line.
Netanyahu made very clear that Israel doesn't intend to launch a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future, but he warned that a military strike could only be postponed for awhile. His 'red line' is essentially this: Iran should not be allowed to produce enough medium-enriched level for a bomb, if further refined to a 90 percent enrichment level. He made sure to emphasize that Israel will not allow Iran to get to this stage of nuclear development, and said he feared that in nine to six months Iran could perhaps reach this stage.
Shortly afterwards, Netanyahu had a lengthy conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and discussed Iran's regional developments and the peace process. This Thursday, President Barack Obama and Netanyahu talked on the phone, and the White House released a statement saying, "The two leaders underscored that they are in full agreement on the shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney also had a telephone conversation with Netanyahu this afternoon. Romney said to reporters travelling with him that he will not take the military option off the table, as a nuclear-capable Iran is a serious threat, but he believes that force will not ultimately be needed.
While Netanyahu has softened his position in regard to a military strike on Iran, Obama has not issued an ultimatum to Tehran as Netanyahu has demanded. However, Netanyahu was very complimentary of Obama's actions to mobilize the world to impose sanctions on Iran. He noted that Israel and the United States are working together on the Iranian nuclear threat.
2 comments:
Netanyahu's position is interesting, especially considering the developments regarding Iran's nuclear program earlier this year. Thinking back to when the IAEA inspection report first broke, the U.S. began quarterbacking a series of punitive sanctions in conjunction with other countries to strangle the Iranian economy. Soon thereafter, the car bombing of an Iranian nuclear scientist along with Iran's renewed threats to close the Strait of Hormuz (thus choking off a key oil export junction) further agitated the already-volatile situation.
Adding to the stir fry was Israel, who already had sour relations with Iran. In some capacity, Israel was inclined to launch a preemptive strike on Iran, opening the potential for the United States to become embroiled in yet another Middle Eastern conflict (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-25/israel-iran/53242476/1).
At the time, this seemed to be an especially plausible scenario: as the Economist pointed out, "Even if Iran were to gain a weapon only for its own protection, others in the region might then feel they need weapons too. Saudi Arabia has said it will arm—and Pakistan is thought ready to supply a bomb in exchange for earlier Saudi backing of its own programme. Turkey and Egypt, the other regional powers, might conclude they have to join the nuclear club. Elsewhere, countries such as Brazil might see nuclear arms as vital to regional dominance, or fear that their neighbours will" (http://www.economist.com/node/21548233).
Thus, the fact that "Netanyahu made very clear that Israel doesn't intend to launch a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future" is all the more curious. To some extent, it seems the prime minister recognized the arguments against disabling Iran's nuclear facilities via military operation made in the same article.
I agree with Sangwon that the chance of Iran gaining nuclear weapons would encourage an arms race in the Middle East and escalate tensions there. The revolts happening right now will only become worth if the issue of nuclear weapons comes into play. The risk of full scale war in the Middle East is obviously a touchy issue with the US, Iran, and Israel and how the standoff resolves can determine the difference between further violence or possible peace in the region.
Netanyahu may have said that Israel does not wish to attack Iran's nuclear facilities right now, but he seems intent on attack them if they become more of a threat. He realizes that Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would harm Israel's interests and might try to destroy their facilities like Israel did with Iraq. However, he flip-flops on his overall stance and probably will have a stronger position once negotiations are done with the United States.
Regarding Netanyahu's speech to the UN, I honestly felt that his cartoon picture of a bomb with the red line was rather hilarious and did not inspire great fear as he might have intended. His desire to work out the situation with Obama is also compromised by Obama's reelection efforts. Therefore, it will take a while before Obama can give the appropriate amount of attention this situation needs if he can win against Romney in the presidential election. It would not be wise for Obama to make any bold statements regarding Iran or Israel until after the election is over or he could compromise his reelection.
While Iran claims its nuclear program is only for clean energy, Israel does not want the balance of power shifted in the region. Of course, it is quite possible that the threat of Iran to peace is only exaggerated by the media through spin and deception. In the end, steps must be taken carefully to make sure the situation is diffused calmly and peacefully. Israel and the USA must not make rash moves which may destabilize the region especially after the recent attacks on US embassies.
Post a Comment