Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu has called for early elections, bringing the date forward from October 2013 to September 4 of this year. This announcement has caused much wringing of hands over the possibility that Bibi’s prime motivation in doing this is his desire to attack Iran this fall.
To help you make sense of what’s going on here and get a more informed sense of the likelihood of an approaching attack on Iran, I offer: 1) the likely reasons why Bibi pushed up the election date, 2) the logic behind the ensuing Iran anxiety, and 3) a reality check.
Q. Why did Bibi push up the election date?
A. One recent incident gave Bibi a salutary kick in the tush, although I think its overall importance is being exaggerated. His FM, Avigdor Lieberman -- he of the exophthalmic, unblinking gaze and charging rhinoceros approach to matters diplomatic -- announced that he no longer feels any obligation to hold up his end of the coalition with Likud, because of the Likud’s purported desire to appease the ultra-orthodox in their desire to continue to avoid army service following the expiration of the Tal Law in August. Far more motivating than Lieberman's hissy fit, though, is the pitiful state of the opposition.
As Jonathan Spyer notes, recent polling by the newspaper Yediot Aharonot indicates that in the current environment, Likud would likely increase its seats in the Knesset to 30 while the opposition Kadima party, which just tossed Tzipi Livni in favor of ex-general Shaul Mofaz, would plummet from 28 seats to 10. While Labor would likely grow significantly (from eight seats to 18), it would still not be in a position to challenge Likud. A brand new centrist party, Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, would take about 11 seats, while Lieberman's own Israel Beitenu party would likely lose a few, bringing it to about 13. None of the parties' leaders, even those who are most vociferous in their objections to Netanyahu, have ruled out joining a Likud coalition on principle.
What all this means is that even if Lieberman bolts, Bibi will have several options in building a new coalition. He could embrace the ultra-orthodox even more fervently, a consummation devoutly to be wished from their perspective should Lieberman and his party disappear from the coalition. Bibi could also go the other way by joining forces with the centrists. Remember that, as Spyer points out, Netanyahu's administration has presided over a period of both relative quiet on the security front and economic stability. He is operating from a position of strength, and it makes strategic sense to ask the public for their approbation at a moment when, for the most part, they're both satisfied with his performance and either disappointed or uncertain about his rivals.
There are some who believe, however, that all of the above is beside the point -- that what Bibi's really doing is playing a (very dangerous) game with dates to make it easier for him to launch an attack on Iran. Which brings us to our second question:
Q. Why do early elections seem to imply an attack on Iran in the fall?
A. Israeli commentator Amnon Abramovich said on television following Bibi's announcement that we should look for an Israeli attack on Iran to take place between the September 4 Israeli election, which will likely reinstall Bibi with a healthy mandate, and the American presidential election in November. The logic is twofold: 1) in that interim period, Obama will be so absorbed in trying to win his own election that he will be highly unlikely to risk alienating Jewish and other pro-Israel American voters by obstructing Bibi; and 2) once Obama is reelected (if that is indeed what happens), as a second-term president he will no longer feel beholden to that constituency and will obstruct Israel at will.
Ari Shavit, writing in Haaretz, adds that Netanyahu well remembers being dumped in favor of Ehud Barak after Bill Clinton came to power -- an event that itself had a precedent in the dumping of Yitzhak Shamir in favor of Yitzhak Rabin after George H. W. Bush came to power. "Obama loathes Netanyahu even more than Bush loathed Shamir or than Clinton loathed Netanyahu," Shavit writes. "If Obama wins in November, he will immediately crush the Israeli prime minister who dared to defy him." Shavit sees the election timetable as part of a dark Machiavellian strategy:
Netanyahu is working to advance a well-organized action plan, according to a strict timeable, that will bring the strategic crisis to boiling point before next winter. He is operating decisively within both the Israeli and the American political systems in order to reach his goal. So far he is getting what he wants, fashioning the chessboard to his liking. He is bringing to life the scenario of elections (in Israel), war (in Iran) and elections (in the United States).
Yikes, right? So:
Q. Is Israel going to attack Israel in the fall or not?
A. No, it isn't. Here's why.
- The Israeli people don't want a unilateral attack. The Israeli polling firm Dahaf published a survey recently indicating that fewer than a fifth of Israelis favor Israel striking Iran on its own. That's not to say they don't want action taken; 42% favor a joint US-Israel attack. A third oppose an attack on Iran under any circumstances.
- The Iranian nuclear program is scattered and buried, making it far more difficult to disrupt via a conventional air strike. The likelihood that Israel could take the whole program out in a single strike or series of strikes is essentially nil, meaning that an attack, even if crippling, would result in possibly devastating counterstrikes. That's a scenario Bibi is unlikely to countenance. A covert assault is much more likely to succeed, and is by its nature not something politicians or military leaders can discuss without compromising the likelihood of its success.
- The suggestion that Israel might attack this fall is powerful in its own right. As Jeffery Tobin noted at Commentary, the European Union's threat of an oil embargo of Iran "would have been unimaginable without their fear that an Israeli attack would overturn the entire Middle East chessboard." Though the nuclear talks that started with Iran last month seem to have sapped Israel's leverage, "if Obama believes there is a window for an Israeli attack in the fall prior to November, that might scare him into forcing Ashton and the negotiators to get tough." As dubious as this strategy might seem on its face, Tobin points out that it's already worked to some extent:
For all of the hysterical criticism being aimed at Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak for their supposed messianism about dealing with Iran, they have actually gone about their business on this issue in a rational manner. By making it clear to the world that Israel would not allow the Islamist regime to pose an existential threat to its existence, they have forced Obama to ratchet up his own rhetoric and to foreswear any policy of “containing” a nuclear Iran.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Feb '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Do you have any idea how long it takes for us to form a government around here? It takes maybe a week to confirm the vote. Then the President spends a week consulting with all the parties. Only then does he invite the head of the logical coalition to form a government. The presumptive PM has three weeks to do that and usually avails himself of the option of an additional three weeks.Then the Knesset has to convene to approve the government.
And I'm not sure how our three weeks of holidays will factor in here, but the invitation to form a government will certainly not be extended before Rosh Hashanah.
There will probably not even be a new government before the US elections.
In the meantime, the previous government functions as a provisional government, which is on one hand very strong because it cannot face a vote of no confidence. But I cannot imagine that a provisional government would go to war.
What might be more problematic is Obama's lame duck period. Who knows what he might do then, besides pardoning Sirhan Sirhan.
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 12:08pmFeb '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Sorry. I didn't see that this was Judith's post. Surely she knows all that.
Aug '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Yair Lapid for PM
Oct '10
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
"2) once Obama is reelected (if that is indeed what happens), as a second-term president he will no longer feel beholden to that constituency and will obstruct Israel at will."
What kinds of obstructions would these be? Some sort of UN resolution siding with Europe?
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 1:18pmMay '10
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I am very worried about how all this might influence the US election.
Mar '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I think that Judith does not appreciate how many options are truly at Israel's disposal.
Of course Israel can take the whole program out in a single strike or series of strikes.
Iran's nuclear program is not just buried installations. It is run by thousands of technicians and scientists, all of whom live above ground. And they are ordered and paid by a much smaller group of leaders who also can be reached by cruise missile.
Jews do not believe, as a matter of religious principle, that a foot soldier is worth less than a leader. Indeed, Israel goes to indefensible lengths to recover its foot soliders, dead or alive. And so, in a campaign aimed at limiting the loss of human life, it makes a lot more sense to merely step up the assassination campaign against scientists and pro-nuclear leaders. It is both morally and militarily the smarter choice.
Imagine, if you will, a stealth missile striking the next Iranian press conference. The head would be removed from Iran's shoulders. If it becomes a matter of policy, then the disincentives for Iran to continue the nuclear program rise to unacceptable levels.
Mar '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
With regards to the US election, I feel certain that Bibi will continue the "deniable" strikes until the Israeli election. The rest of the campaign will take place between that date and the US election.
Bibi owes Obama nothing. Never before has an Israeli leader felt less beholden to the United States. Forcing Obama to take a stand on a Middle East war will remove any lingering hope that Obama is an adequate Commander in Chief in time of crisis.
Aug '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I agree totally with Judith. No chance Netanyahu is going to strike Iran alone. And since he can't count on Obama for assistance, lets just hope sanctions and covert activities work until 2016.
Nov '10
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I find it difficult to make any recommendation to the Israeli PM. Who among us can imagine taking responsibility for the consequences of an armed strike against Iran when we here in the US do not have to bear the immediate results of the blow?
I can only wish him well and pray for his considered resolution in this matter, as I think that he truly is dealing with the life of a nation.
I must say, though, that the whole business reminds me of 1936 (the Rhineland re-militarization) and the succeeding 1938 Munich debacle. When the cost of stopping an aggressive tyrant was "relatively" cheap, the nations in his path hadn't the courage to face the reality of the threat nor the will to fight; when it became impossible not to resist, they hadn't the means.
BUT, when confrontation becomes necessary, it is always better in my own experience to strike one's hardest when one thinks it best (and to continue striking until the matter is finished) and not to await the other fellow's initial blow.
May '10
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Judith Levy:
My impression of Netanyahu is that he would gladly sacrifice his party's dominance for the lives of millions of Israeli citizens. Am I wrong?
Survival first.
iWc is right about the value of scientists. But Iran knows their value, too. And I suspect nuclear scientists are easier to replace now than in the past.
I didn't. Thanks for the information.
Jun '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Oh come on, this is all horse hockey or is it horse puckie? Anyways -first Israel has the means to bring Iran to it's knees - destroy at will and in it's own time what it wants. Their nuclear weapons fall between "98" and "200" both numbers I have read via the internet (American intelligence at it's best). They have intercontinental missiles - which actually work - to deliver them with impunity. They are the premiere military power in this area and I would say the second or third in the world. So securing Iran's air space and flying without impairment is within it's capability. Finally they have the guts, the fortitude and will - "Never again."
Mar '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I hope you're not serious. He appointed himself party leader until 2020, right? And his children inherit the leadership after him? Hmmmm . . .
Jun '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Iran has no nuclear weapons, has a tin-pot third world nation military which farcically boasts claims of grandeur, has a economy and society decimated and hollowed by the Islamic revolution and the huge redirection of wealth from normal societal infrastructure into it's development of the atomic weapons program. I would also speculate on the quality of the "reinforced" structures "buried" deep underground. Israel does not have to destroy all of the parts of Iran's nuclear program they only have to destroy the part which is the most critical, deadly and most costly to permanently stop the process. Obviously the enrichment - disperse the already enriched material over a wide area, lethally contaminating the facility requiring a complete rebuild and reinvestment of billions of dollars. The financial collapse would be similar to that of the USSR, and surprise, surprise we would learn what we should already know - tin-pot dictators are all bombastic and never about substance. And democracies are about substance and never bombastic.
Mar '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I was certain that all clear-thinking, sane Israelis would support a strike, until I read an op-ed in "B'Sheva" pointing out that nuclear proliferation amongst nations hostile to Israel is an unavoidable part of the future. We can't attack all of them, so we should concentrate on good defense systems and beefing up our credibility by responding forcefully to local aggression, i.e. by the Palestinians, Hezbollah, etc. I thought they made a cogent argument.
Apr '12
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
Sadly
You realize, of course, that the Arab/Moslem goal is the destruction of Israel, hopefully coincident with the pretense to a moral high ground. The problem with waiting is that there is no defense system that can protect from multiple nearby launches.
Ending Iran's nuclear threat is just the first step, and others will be have to be dealt with as they progress in their genocidal mania.
My Hebrew isn't good enough to read the article, I'm sure it's more in depth, but I believe the premise is wrong: They can all be attacked.
As Judith points out, this would be a hard pill for Israeli's to swallow - a first strike attack without a clear imminent threat is a bitter lesser-of-two-evils option, and you know the Left would skew it all in one direction.
Yet, there are no good options left, any action will prove daunting.
Feb '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
I would think that you don't have to attack them all. Just enough so the others know you mean business. Which thusfar is no one.
Having Lieberman as your Foreign Minister is useful in that regard - certainly moreso than having Labour/Kadima.
Nov '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
What about an attack this summer, before the Israeli elections? (Begin ordered the Osirak attack before an election.)
It's wrong to assume Obama would oppose unilateral Israeli action. His philosophical orientation inclines him to hinder Israel always. . . but stronger than his philosophical inclinations are his political calculations. Supporting Israeli action is more likely to help than to hurt his domestic standing in the run-up to the US elections.
In matters of foreign policy and national security this administration is guided by a non-specific antipathy towards our traditional allies (especially Israel), and a corresponding inclination to excuse dangerous acts of our enemies (especially Islamists). But Obama's antipathy and inclination are contrary to the American mainstream. So the result is dilatoriness, fence-sitting, and foolish talk, followed by tardy hamhanded half-actions calculated for domestic political consumption without regard to national interest: Egypt, Lybia.
My best guess: Israel acts before its September elections, and Obama supports the Israeli action after the fact, because not to do so would cost votes.
It's also possible Obama would coordinate an attack with Israel--not because he wants to, but because he makes a political calculation.
Edited on May 7, 2012 at 9:42pmAug '11
Re: Do Early Elections in Israel Imply an Israeli Strike on Iran This Fall?
SettlerMom
I hope you're not serious. He appointed himself party leader until 2020, right? And his children inherit the leadership after him? Hmmmm . . . · 12 hours ago
Thats your gripe with him? As long as he does what he promises i.e. less money to the Yeshivas more to the middle class I'm with him. Anyway, the election has been postponed now, so the point is moot for now.