Why Iran vs. Israel rhetoric could escalate into war
| Tel Aviv, Israel; and Istanbul, Turkey
The Israeli drumbeat for a military strike against Iran鈥檚 nuclear program grew louder this week as former intelligence chief Shabtai Shavit said the Jewish state must not 鈥渟it idly and wait until the enemy comes to attack you.鈥�
鈥淪ince there is an ongoing war, since the threat is permanent, since the intention of the enemy in this case is to annihilate you, the right doctrine is one of preemption and not of retaliation,鈥� Mr. Shavit told a conference at the hawkish Bar Ilan University on Monday.
Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran have long been arch-foes. But these enemies have grown in their ignorance, misperceptions, and demonization of each other 鈥� and have thereby dangerously raised the risk of escalation to direct conflict, analysts say. That has raised jitters in Washington, with Israel鈥檚 closest ally warning against a unilateral attack that would inevitably draw in US forces already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
鈥淭he real fear is that someone will get carried away by his own rhetoric and fear-mongering,鈥� says Martin Van Creveld, a military historian at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 鈥淏ut if you are going to get anything out of this, you have to make the impression that this [first-strike] is not impossible. You can鈥檛 take the option off the table. Why should you?鈥�
'The rhetoric .. can just become reality'
Israel鈥檚 overall political shift to the right means comments such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak鈥檚 recent statement that Iran currently 鈥渄oes not pose an existential threat鈥� are increasingly rare.
鈥淲hen you have that kind of political environment, you are leaving yourself no space to find another solution,鈥� says Trita Parsi, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. 鈥淵ou may very well end up in a situation where you are propelled to act, even though you understand it is an unwise action, but [do so] for political reasons.鈥�
Haggai Ram, an Iran specialist at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, agrees.
鈥淏eing a historian, I know how things get out of control, how all of a sudden there is a dynamic you can鈥檛 control and you find yourself in a war,鈥� says Dr. Ram. 鈥淭he rhetoric from both sides, because it is so intensive, and involves so many emotions ... can just become reality.鈥�
Self-fulfilling prophecy?
A number of Israeli experts on Iran reckon the actual threat from Tehran is limited 鈥� even non-existent 鈥� 鈥渂ut nobody ever listens to them; you don鈥檛 see them in the headlines,鈥� says Dr. Van Creveld. 鈥淢ost Israelis 鈥� because they are really afraid, or as a matter of policy 鈥� reinforce each others鈥� fears.鈥�
Those fears have been near the top of Israel鈥檚 strategic calculations for many years, and often rank higher than ongoing conflict with Palestinians, and the Iran- and Syria-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. Top Israeli officials say that Iran鈥檚 nuclear program 鈥� which Tehran says is for peaceful energy production 鈥� presents an 鈥渆xistential鈥� threat.
The result is skewed calculations, analysts say, that could inadvertently lead to war.
鈥淪ince the mid-1990s, there has been a policy of seeking to portray Iran as a very significant threat to the region and the world, partly to motivate the West 鈥� particularly the US 鈥� to take a hard line against Iran,鈥� says Dr. Parsi.
鈥淎 lot of people in Israel who had dealings with Iran in the 1980s, and obviously extensively in the 1970s, who know the country quite well, are less and less in the bureaucracy,鈥� says Parsi, author of The Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States. 鈥淭hat distance between actual understanding, and the [Iran-threat] talking points that were used externally ... creates a very dangerous situation for Israel, because it turns the threat from Iran into a self-fulfilling prophecy.鈥�
But Ram points out that the hard-line rhetoric goes in both directions.
鈥淚t鈥檚 two-dimensional: one side always provokes the other side, and vice versa; it鈥檚 a dialogue,鈥� says the historian, author of Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession. 鈥淪o when [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad says he would wish the death of the 鈥榋ionist occupying regime,鈥� it is in essence not different from when [Israeli President Shimon] Peres or another Israeli functionary says that we should bring an end to the Iranian regime.鈥�
One approach: Let Iran know missiles = Israeli strike
The outcome of Iran-Israel sparring, then, may depend on how Israel interprets Iranian rhetoric and possible actions and reactions.
Reuven Pedatzur, head of a strategic dialogue center at Netanya Academic College, analyzed seven options for Israel at an Iran seminar last week. 鈥淢ost of them are bad, and one which is less bad 鈥� and eventually we will have to adopt it 鈥� is open nuclear deterrence,鈥� says Mr. Pedatzur, a long-time critic of missile defense, saying it is 鈥渋rrelevant鈥� in the case of a nuclear attack.
Israel should declare its own nuclear arsenal, and spell out the 鈥渞ules of the game鈥� to Iran, says Pedatzur. 鈥淭he main rule would be ... 鈥榊ou should know what will happen if we detect one missile going westward from Iran. We are not going to wait to see whether it鈥檚 [nuclear], automatically we are going to launch our missiles and destroy Qom, Tehran, Tabriz, Esfahan, and so on.鈥欌��
If that were clear, Pedatzur believes Tehran would be deterred.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 see any Iranian national interest that justifies destroying Iran, just for killing 200,000 Zionists,鈥� he says.
Olmert asked: Have we taken this too far?
Van Creveld has also argued for such nuclear deterrence. In 1997, he told the Monitor that 鈥渨hen Mao and Stalin acquired nuclear weapons, they calmed down,鈥� and that if Iran were to ever acquire nuclear weapons 鈥渢he effect will be the same鈥� because 鈥渨ar ceases to be fun. It becomes suicide.鈥�
The historian believes that deterrence can work in a country where some have argued that Iran is irrational, and can't be deterred. He says former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert asked him whether 鈥渨e [Israelis] had not taken this too far, to the point where it was doing more harm than good,鈥� by 鈥渇rightening ourselves.鈥�
Nuclear deterrence 鈥渉as worked elsewhere in every single place around the world,鈥� says Van Creveld. 鈥淪o why not in the Middle East?鈥�
RELATED STORIES:
