Everything surrounding Syrian President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons a few weeks ago, together with U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last week, threatens to undermine the U.S.'s strategic claim that Israel should avoid attacking Iran alone because the Jewish state needs to trust the U.S.
The U.S. bases that core argument on the motif of our times. Washington says it has substantial and sound intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, and if Iran was to manage a "breakthrough" and develop a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would have enough time to respond militarily. But the past few weeks have cast a dark shadow over this claim. While the U.S. under Obama's leadership has searched through its allies for a broad coalition, the U.S. has been forced to give these countries the necessary time for their political systems to work. And some of these political systems have asked the U.S. to provide further "proof," as if they need court evidence rather than military intelligence.
But the sort of intelligence that the British and French parliaments demand as proof will be elusive in the future, especially when the intelligence is information gathered by spies rather than legally acquired evidence. Should Iran develop a nuclear bomb, are we going to have the time to wait for back-bench British parliamentarians to be convinced? Assad may have allowed U.N. inspectors to investigate the site of the chemical weapons attack, but what if Iran blocks international inspectors from accessing the facilities where scientists have apparently achieved a nuclear breakthrough? Lacking international inspection, is the argument for a military strike unconvincing?
The past week has also cast a shadow of doubt over the U.S.'s ability to act in a timely manner. The president hesitated before he decided, apparently, that an attack was necessary. Then, on Aug. 31, Obama unleashed the (political) bomb: He announced that he would seek preliminary consultation with Congress and a public debate. Every argument for attacking Syria is all the more valid in the case of Iran, where the dangers and the potential price of inaction are much greater than in Syria. The potential for a serious entanglement is much more acute. So will Obama reject a congressional debate over Iran?
A second claim by the U.S. and other supporters of an international coalition suggests that the Iranian problem is not solely an Israeli concern, but a global and American concern as well. But the past few days have taught us the weakness of such claims. The British Parliament did not approve direct British involvement in a military strike against Syria, despite Prime Minister David Cameron's wishes. And so membership to the U.S. coalition became thinner until the list comprised, perhaps, just two symbolic partners.
Even more serious than this claim is Obama's retreat from his own red lines. On Aug. 31, he basically said that while he supported a strike, he would shift the responsibility for making the call to the public and political sectors. He clarified that he could not predict the outcome of this public, political debate. This president, therefore, does not see himself as the leader of the free world. Rather he sees himself more like a clerk writing policy proposals. Former President Harry Truman's famous quote underling presidential authority, that "the buck stops here," is fading before our very eyes.
This reality also pulls the rug from under diplomatic negotiations with Iran. A credible military threat is necessary for there to be any sort of substance to negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program. But now, it turns out, the U.S. has no alternative to negotiations, effectively draining nuclear talks of all meaning.
Two necessary conclusions can be drawn from the recent developments. First, the Iranians will continue working toward breakthroughs for a nuclear bomb. They will learn how to reach weapons-grade status without providing inconvenient evidence. Second, political complications ensure that nuclear development will happen more quickly than the international community will respond to it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must assimilate the information he already knows -- Israel stands alone against a nuclear Iran.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו