Iran's insurance policy

If you believe the Iranians, you have no reason to be afraid. But who still believes the Iranians? How is it that world powers are able to conduct negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program with the ayatollah regime, and even find, at the end of each round of talks (Istanbul and Baghdad), the positive formula that can lead to an additional round of talks (Moscow)? The world does not want a bomb (Iranian), but what it wants even less is a bombing (Israeli).

Here in Israel the debate surrounding a possible Israeli attack on Iran refuses to die down. For some people, the very debate has become just as menacing as the actual Iranian nuclear bomb. Every forum and every conference is now seen as a good place to discuss the issue further. The opportunity seems even more apt if the conference in question is the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, and if there are two opposing viewpoints — that of Defense Minister Ehud Barak on one side, and that of former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former IDF chief Lt. Gen. (res.) Gabi Ashkenazi on the other.

Barak (who has spoken out in favor of attacking Iran) argued on Wednesday that the Iranians are trying to deceive the entire world and that their only objective is to buy time. He said the Iranians, in a typically underhanded manner, were striving to reach the point of being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon if they so desired. Even the opponents of an Israeli attack in Iran know full well that the aim of the Iranian nuclear program is not to solve Shiraz's or Isfahan's electricity shortages, but they still prefer to take the risk.

Keep in mind that as early of the days of our first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, our collective national consciousness was imprinted with the fundamental principle of refusing to tolerate nuclear weapons in our region. An Iranian nuclear bomb would obviously be a deviation from that collective principle. Beyond just the serious existential threat to Israel, it would also ensure the nuclearization of the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt would be next in line, if and when that happens.

Neither Dagan nor Ashkenazi wants an Iranian bomb, and the security of Israel is probably no less important to them than it is to anyone else. But their approach is a bit odd, and even a bit fatalistic. In their view, an attack would only accelerate the development of Iran's nuclear bomb. It is possible that they are basing their argument on an exact science, if not on precise intelligence, but is it really wise to inform the Iranians in every possible forum that an attack is unnecessary and thus encourage the Iranians to continue this farce we are calling nuclear talks? Is it wise to allow the Iranians to buy more and more time, and give them the sense that they are actually invincible-

Former Director of Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin's recent remarks actually make sense. He said that an Iran that feels "invincible" will continue to push its nuclear program forward to the point where an attack against it becomes inevitable. In other words, Dagan and Ashkenazi's comments against an attack will actually have the opposite effect than the one they desire.

For Tehran, military nuclear capability would serve as an insurance policy keeping the current regime in power and ensuring the continued perpetuation of the Shiite revolution. It would be naive to think that the current Iranian regime will suddenly change its mind. The furthest it is willing to go is these farcical talks, especially if it is being promised invincibility.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו