Global IssuesMIDEAST: All Unclear on Nuclear
Blame for the shadowy war of attrition against Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes usually prompts vigorous U.S. and Israeli denials of involvement, or self-imposed silence. Yet, the two allies risk being hoisted on their own ambiguity petard.
During the Cold War, former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, well known for his obscure language, once said, 'The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that would be clearly understood.'
In the ‘Haig-speak’ vein, the substitution of 'Russians' with 'Iranians and Israelis' might shed light on the recent messages relayed by the White House through 'secret channels'.
It warned Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that closing the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil shipping lane, is a 'red line'. Publicly, it strongly condemned last week’s murky assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.
As to Israel, the telephone conversation overnight Friday between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cast another shadow over the level of trust between the two leaders.
They did review the tentative Israeli-Palestinian talks on the eve of a third direct, inconclusive meeting in Amman, Jordan. But the presidential call was aimed primarily at clearing up another point of disagreement.
Compounded by recent U.S. and Israeli media reports, mutual incomprehension is rampant on Iran due to lack of full coordination. This, as an international package of sanctions against the Islamic Republic is being put together.
The U.S. has begun targeting Iran's oil exports and its central bank in a bid to force it to abort its nuclear programme.
The EU is expected to approve a formal ban on all oil purchases from Iran by month’s end. But grappling with its member states’ financial woes, the timing of the enforcement of synchronised sanctions is yet to be determined.
Since the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reported in November that Iran has sought to miniaturise a nuclear weapon design to fit on ballistic missiles and to develop detonators used in triggering a fissile reaction, fears of conflict between Iran and the West have amplified.
Claims by U.S. defence officials that the Israeli response to calls for a coordinated policy vis-à-vis Iran is non-committal, worse ambivalent, has reportedly led Washington to prepare contingency plans to Israel’s increased preparations for a possible attack on Iran.
Was Netanyahu warned of the dire consequences of such unilateralism, as the reports contend? It’s quite possible. Assuaging White House fears, Netanyahu declared over the weekend in The Australian newspaper, 'For the first time, I see Iran wobble under the sanctions that have been adopted.
'If these sanctions are coupled with a clear statement by the international community led by the U.S. to act militarily to stop Iran if sanctions fail,' he cautioned convolutedly, 'Iran may consider not going through the pain.'
Meanwhile, Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon seemed to contradict Netanyahu’s assessment.
'In the U.S. administration there’s hesitation for fear of oil prices rising this year, out of election-year considerations,' Ya’alon told Israel Radio on Sunday. 'This is certainly disappointing, for now.' Obama has long been perceived as being 'too soft' on Iran.
Iran has also reacted ambivalently. On one hand, it’s announcing plans for fresh naval manoeuvres in the strategic channel in February. On the other, it now agrees to host a senior delegation of IAEA inspectors. The visit is tentatively set for Jan. 28. Iran’s 'surprise move' is thought to help curb the sanctions programme.
It still isn’t clear as to whether Iran will let the inspectors visit key facilities and interview officials the West say are responsible for its nuclear weapons programme.
At the heart of Israeli-U.S. misunderstanding is precisely the protracted argument over issues of deadlines and red lines on Iran’s nuclear programme.
The U.S. red line seems to be linked to Iran crossing the threshold of capability towards developing nuclear warheads rather than towards nuclear weapon enrichment, as seems to be Israel’s red line.
That Iran has begun enriching uranium at the Fordo underground bunker to a level that can be upgraded for use in a nuclear weapon has been confirmed by the U.N. atomic agency. In December, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak assessed that it’ll take 'three quarters (of a year) before no one can do anything practically' to stop Iran's nuclear quest.
Then, what can Israel do 'practically' — prod the West into more decisive sanctions; prod U.S. military action; attack Iran; prod U.S. contingency plans to hold Israel back — euphemism for being dragged into war? In which case, it might be urgent to constrain Israel.
Or, the lack of coordination, not to say crisis of confidence, between the allies is 'a calculated ambiguity' of '(Israeli) bad cop, (U.S.) good cop' to further sow disinformation on the real intent of their policy. Hence, the reports are publicly refuted by officials of both countries.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials deplore Obama’s ambivalence towards Israel, and ambiguity towards Iran is plunging not only Iran, but Israel and the U.S. itself, into incertitude.
In this charged context, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff is dispatched this week to Tel Aviv to receive assurances of full harmony from his Israeli defence counterpart.
U.S.-Israeli coordination means that joint evaluation of contingency plans and limits to freedom of action should be agreed in advance at the highest echelon, say Israeli defence analysts.
The issue is not how to attack Iran, from which direction, but exchange of ideas and scenarios so as not to be surprised, they stress. This is a case of not to be surprised by your closest ally.
But ambiguity means not necessarily ambivalence. The overall message remains the same: all options are 'on' the table, theoretically. In practice though, the U.S. postponed the largest-ever joint manoeuvres with Israel. Scheduled for April, the exercise was supposed to test air-defence capabilities and test-fire new missiles.
According to Israel’s Channel Two, the reason lies in the U.S. reluctance to fuel tension with Iran. Yet, it’s sure to fuel more confusion amongst Israeli decision-makers. After all, ‘unclear’ is an anagram of ‘nuclear’.
© Inter Press Service (2012) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service