An active debate is taking place in the Israeli media concerning an attack on Iran, and it will most likely be expanded in light of the International Atomic Energy Agency report scheduled to be released on Tuesday. The problem with the debate is not that the media is engaged in it a debate on the Iranian issue, including Israel's options, has been going on for years in the Israeli media. The problem is the content of the debate, the urgency that it hints at, the tendency to link every word and act to a supposed imminent attack on Iran, and the feeling that every claim by military experts made against an attack on Iran in the past few years has been brushed aside in favor of one simple question: Who supports an attack on Iran- An obvious example of this is Defense Minister Ehud Barak's support for a military attack on Iran. Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Nahum Barnea wrote that Barak is convinced that just as Israel thwarted its enemies' nuclear projects in the past, it must thwart this one as well. But we need to understand the meaning of his statement. Is Israel capable of stopping Iran's nuclear program through military means? Is the Iranian situation today similar to the Iraqi situation we faced in the early 1980s? In the public debate concerning this question, most people believe that Iran is unlike Iraq and Syria, and Israel is not capable of stopping the Iranian nuclear program through military means alone. This opinion is based on the fact that Iran has spread many of its nuclear facilities throughout its large country, that some of the facilities are located underground, and the belief that Iran has other facilities that Israel (and the world) does not know about. Iran is also not sitting idly by waiting for the world to attack it. It surely is preparing for an attack and protecting its facilities against such an attack. In a best-case scenario, if a military attack on Iran is successful, its nuclear program will be merely postponed. But the price of such an attack needs to be considered as well, especially as opposed to other options an issue that has also been covered extensively in the public debate. Another central issue is that the public was not "a partner" to the decisions made by former Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Olmert to attack the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities, and that this is something that needs to be addressed. But since when does a public debate mean that the public must be part of the political decision-making process? A public debate should be used as a forum to express opinions and clarify strategic issues, in an attempt to influence the political echelon's way of thinking. But the public should not be, and cannot be, a partner in the decision itself. The expectation some harbor of being a partner to the decision is unrealistic, and may even be dangerous. If the government decides to attack, despite significant reasons not to, it is clear that the element of surprise will be essential. There is also a different interpretation about the current events. If recent reports of British preparations for war with Iran, led by the U.S, are added to the current debate in Israel, it could all be part of a combined effort to pressure Iran in tandem with the release of the IAEA report. A credible military threat which doesn't necessarily have to materialize coupled with additional economic sanctions, can put additional pressure on Iran and lead it to negotiate an end to the crisis. But there is a thin line between a credible threat and the actual use of military force, and when the debate in Israel is handled the way it has been over the past week, the line can easily disappear. Emily Landau is a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies, where she is also director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project.
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!
