(Iran Bomb:) The end of the military option

[Middle East News Service comments: The English version of this article (below) is an abridged and truncated rendition of the Hebrew. Nevertheless, it is the best analysis I have seen so far of the new circumstances. Time constraints prevent me from translating the whole lot but the following rough translation may give you an idea:

“No American president, not even George Bush will be able to attack while this report remains the cornerstone of policy determination for his (or her) administration. Already there have been grumbling from Vice-President Cheney’s office Israel will also find that the report constrains it as well. The US will be unwilling to pay the price of an attack by a close ally. It is very doubtful if Israel could attack while the US remains opposed to it. True, Prime Minster Olmert did tell Bush in their meeting last week that Israel will defend itself, and a head of an Arab state’s intelligence organisation had recently opined that Israel will attack Iranian installation in the next few months – but the circumstances have now changed.

“They have changed both in the international arena and in the internal US arena. The tasks of the Jewish organisation which focussed on mobilising the numbers and building support in opposition to Iran will become much more complicated. Legislators’ enthusiasm to spend their time in tightening the rope over Iran economy may well evaporate or at least shrink in size.”

No doubt the report would have been greeted with chagrin by our own “attack Iran now” forces spearheaded by the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs council. It will certainly weight heavily on the thoughts of our own new government who may use the opportunity for some reflection on the subject – Sol Salbe.]

The end of the military option

By Shmuel Rosner and Aluf Benn

WASHINGTON - "An intelligence consensus is difficult to challenge with new data," wrote Judge Richard Posner in his book "Preventing Surprise Attack," which deals with the necessary reforms in American intelligence services post-9/11.

Intelligence officers, like anyone else, "are reluctant to change their minds" and admit they made a mistake or were caught by surprise. So the U.S. intelligence services should be given credit for trying to correct their mistake. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that correcting a mistake with another mistake makes it all the more difficult to change one's mind the next time.

Israel's ambassador to Washington, Sallai Meridor, spent the weekend warning about Iran's nuclear program. Meanwhile, Israel knew about the report that was to be released, but Meridor warned in no uncertain terms that "time is running out." Either way, the official report blew up in his face: Time is not running out, the Iranians are not making progress, and Israel may come to be seen as a panic-stricken rabbit.

The debate surrounding this report's conclusions will be substantial, and many will assume that its authors have failed in gathering or interpreting the intelligence out there. A psychological interpretation will also be thrown into the pot, discounting the conclusions. The same intelligence that warned of Saddam Hussein's non-conventional arsenal is now making the opposite, deadly error in relation to Iran. The Americans will find themselves surprised like they did when they learned of the Indian and Pakistani bombs.

Professionals will now argue passionately, continuing the debates between Israel's assessment (an Iranian bomb in 2009-2010) and the American one (a bomb in 2012-2013).

The Americans failed to explain yesterday how they reached their new conclusions. As such, the general public will find it difficult to decide who is right. Maybe in the future, when there suddenly really is a bomb in play, or maybe not - a decision on this can be final. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence has adopted the "most severe" approach, but the American decision maker is only affected by the Americans writing the assessment.

It does not really matter. However successful or flawed this report may be, there is a new, dramatic reality, in all aspects of the struggle against the Iranian bomb: The military option, American or Israeli, is off the table, indefinitely.

[The independent Middle East News Service concentrates on providing alternative information chiefly from Israeli sources. It is sponsored by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of the AJDS. These are expressed in its own statements
Please note that while our own comments are not copyrighted we do appreciate acknowledgement. Items forwarded may be copyrighted and are forwarded to alert you of their existence.]

© Scoop Media