THE SELL OUT

`Israel must consider ties with US when weighing attack on Iran`

Hilary Leila Krieger - Jul 19, 2009
The Jerusalem Post

Amid reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to Israel next
week for talks on Teheran`s nuclear program, a senior US defense official
has told The Jerusalem Post that an Israeli strike on Iran could be
profoundly destabilizing and would affect US interests.

Israel needed to take its relationship with America into account in
contemplating any such attack, he warned.

Gates, who last week described the Islamic republic`s nuclear drive as the
greatest current threat to global security, is set to spend six hours here
next Monday, discussing the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. He will also visit Jordan,
according to officials involved in planning the trip.

In his interview with the Post at the Pentagon, the senior US defense
official also suggested that Syria might be ready to "fundamentally"
reorient its position toward the United States, which would include
restarting talks with Israel, at a time when Hamas and Hizbullah have been
put "on the defensive" by Obama administration policies and events in Iran.

Those events, said the official, who insisted on anonymity, hadn`t been seen
to affect Iran`s timeline on developing nuclear weapons. What was clear, he
indicated, was the negative effect an Israeli strike would have.

"A unilateral third-party attack on Iran`s nuclear program could have
profoundly destabilizing consequences, and it wouldn`t just affect the
general level of stability in the region. It would affect Israel`s security
and it would affect our interests, and the safety of our forces in
Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere," the official said, when asked if the US
expected Israel to inform it of any decision to strike Iran.

"It`s a pretty big deal, and given the closeness of our relationship with
Israel, I think we would hope that they would take those strategic
calculations into account."

His comments in the interview, conducted on Friday, came on the heels of
conflicting signs from the Obama administration about whether it had given
Israel a so-called "green light" to attack Iran, after Vice President Joe
Biden said "Israel can determine for itself - it`s a sovereign nation -
what`s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and
anyone else" on July 5.

Obama clarified on CNN later in the week that he had "absolutely not" given
Israel permission to strike Iran.

The comments also followed a report in The Washington Times that Israel had
not asked the US for permission for a possible military attack on Iran out
of fear America would say no.

The senior Pentagon official said Israel and the United States shared a
similar estimate on the timeframe for Iran developing a nuclear weapon. He
ascribed discrepancies in press accounts largely to differences in what
deadline is being referenced, such as gaining nuclear capability versus
building an actual bomb.

"There may be some disagreement about how quickly the Iranians could
weaponize," he noted of Israeli versus American assessments, "but the
general timeframe about when the Iranians might cross a threshold of a
nuclear weapons capability is broadly in that one-to-three year timeframe
that the chairman [Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] has noted
on a number of occasions."

The official said that even with the turmoil in Iran, as opposition groups
continue to protest a presidential election they believe is fraudulent, "We
don`t see any evidence that there`s been a political decision made to
accelerate or decelerate" the nuclear program.

He did assess, though, that three scenarios were likely to emerge which
would have implications for the nuclear program and the chances of success
for America`s efforts to engage Iran diplomatically on the subject.

He said in two, the conservatives in the regime emerge successful in their
crackdown but take different tacks afterwards.

In the first case they could "hunker down" and focus on stamping out
dissent, relating to the international community only as a "scapegoat" on
which to blame all their internal problems.

"If that`s the scenario that plays out, it`s gong to be very difficult to
have a successful diplomatic engagement with Iran," he said.

But in the other case, the conservatives in power could feel the economic
pinch of international isolation and decide to take steps not to alienate
the West further. In this scenario, "rational calculators" in Iran could
comprise a dominant faction "that pushes for actually a gradual improvement
of relations with the West."

The US official said it was "too early" to assess which scenario was more
likely. He also allowed for the possibility of a third scenario of "muddle"
to result instead, in which nothing about the government or its postures
were clarified for quite some time.

But one indicator that has emerged so far, he said, was that Teheran had not
stoked its proxies, such as Hizbullah and Hamas, in the short term.

Instead, he contended, the problems in Iran, the rejection of Hizbullah in
the Lebanese elections, the Palestinian Authority`s strides in the West Bank
and Obama`s overtures through the region were "all things that put Hamas and
Hizbullah on the defensive."

He continued, "In looking where the region was a year ago, you would have
said that there was a lot of momentum on the side of Iran and its allies. I
think if you would assess the situation right now, that the momentum is
probably going in the opposite direction."

He said that when it came to Syria, the US still hadn`t seen "on the Hamas
or Hizbullah front that there`s been any improvement," and "we`re
approaching a time where it`s pretty clear the Syrians need to start showing
pretty concretely that they`re ready to start changing their behavior, not
just their words," though he did note the country`s help in limited the flow
of foreign fighters into Iraq.

Still, he said, "There is a change in that Syria is increasingly willing to
have a productive conversation with us" and "there`s reason to be cautiously
optimistic."

He elaborated, "I think the Syrians have expressed a genuine desire that I
think raises the possibility that they may be open to fundamentally changing
their relationship with us and reentering the Arab fold."

Part of that, he indicated, would include restarting peace talks with Israel
that Damascus called off during the Gaza war this winter.

In the meantime, though, he pointed to the serious threat facing Israel from
the extremist groups that Syria supported, and stressed that America must be
cognizant of that reality when it urged Israel to take steps toward peace,
as well as translate that awareness into support for missile defense and
other programs to help provide Israel a more secure environment.

"One of the issues that`s important as we`re asking Israel to lean forward
in the peace process is to recognize that from their perspective, there are
risks associated with handing over territory and we need to work with them
to address those risks so the Israeli government feels more confident in
pursuing peace."