Omar Elwan 900-07-3202 POLS 415

Short Paper

5th April 2012

Is There a Difference between the US position and The Israeli Position On Iran

Dr. Manar El-Shorbagy

On the process of eliminating the sources of threats on US interests and Israel security in the Middle East region, Iran is expecting an intimate attack to demolish their growing nuclear program. Obviously the two most powerful military powers in the world are never ought to accept the existence of major nuclear power in the Middle East. Along the years after the Iranian revolution, American and Israeli policies towards Iran expressed marvelous efforts to pressure the economy and society of Iran to stand as a bargain to establishing the nuclear militant program. The way the American administration dealt with the situation in Iran was different from the Israeli administration. That is absolutely due to different kinds of administrations and positions within the threats that the Iranian nuclear program would hold to interests of both countries. However they share the common goal of achieving their own security along with keeping the maximum interests. The threats of Irans entry in the nuclear club may lie on putting Israels and American targets security in danger; Iran may encourage terrorism in their neighboring countries. Irans support to militant and terrorist groups that are opposing Israel administration like Hamas and Hezbollah during the period of unrest between Israel and Lebanon holds history of unfriendly relation between Iran and Israel. In Zeev Schiff article Israel war with Iran, he mentioned the incident of the Iranian aircraft flying to Syria with aid to victims of a recent earthquake that was actually transporting missiles to Hezbollah during the time of Ariel Sharon holding prime minister office. (Schiff) The concerns of Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear program may not hold the same level of strategic priority as in the US administration due to two main facts, first, playing at different fronts, like facing Palestine terror kidnappings, facing Hezbollah and Hamas.

On the other hand, Israel is not the only one confronting the nuclear threat form Iran. A lot of players like UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy can manage issuing resolutions and charges for Irans illegal weapon program. Israel always urges the US department to deal with the issue of Iran as fast as possible. In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponsand quicklyor an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Irans nuclear facilities itself. (Goldberg 2009) Israel prime minister saw the Obama administration mission entitled of two main goals, fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from developing the nuclear weapon, meanwhile, the whole world should start worrying about what is going on in Iran. In fact, the Israel department under Netanyahu tried to set the issue of Iran as priority for the US first, and the whole world, to eliminate the threat before it start dealing with it on its own through military means. Israel may be hesitant to attack Iran at that time fearing from the unexpected outcomes, taking into consideration the US experience in Iraq. Moreover, the type of regime in Iran is facing oppositions and mobilization against the government from various opposition groups inside the country, especially after the last presidential elections of Ahmadinejad in June 12, 2009 that witnessed opposition claiming corruption. (Khatzman 7) If a military action took place, the population would stand by the regime and fight back the attacking powers. That would cost a lot and also have uncertain outcomes. May be the high chances of the change of regime in Iran due to the Arab spring across the Middle East is what delays any military action by Israel to this point.

According to the Truman research institute for advancement of peace and Palestinian center for survey research, polls conducted revealed that about 69% of Israel population is supporting a joint Israel-US strike on the Iranian nuclear installations. However, 42% support the attack even if Israel is supposed to launch it alone. These polls published in Israeli newspaper in March 2012, are showing higher support to the launch of the strike on Iran, even higher than a previous poll conducted by Shibley Telhami of the brooking institute. Apparently the public supports the attack on Iran, however 73% among the Israelis themselves believe that a regional war will wage the world if the strike happened. (Israelnationalnews.com) Also New-york times newspaper published an analysis piece that declares from a high Israeli official, that the prime minister and defense minister in the Israeli department are working secretly and closely together on the process of decision making regarding Iran, not sharing with other officials their decisions. Although the cabinet did not talk lately about Iran, but a long preparation increase the possibility of a military action. As reported by NYT reporter Of the two men, he said: one views himself as a savior, the other lives for a good operation. Theyre strange pair who has come to appreciate each other. Together they control this issue. (Ronen NYT). Apparently the Israeli cabinet is trying to give the impression of mystery and uncertainty about Iran as it still committed by the actions of the International world organizations and other powerful states, like US, nuclear proliferation acts, international Atomic Energy center. etc. However, the Israeli population is expecting the war at any time. On the U.S. side, the policies towards Tehran are different from those of Israel, in sense of having wider effects and perspectives. The U.S. policies under Obama administration

are following the same policies that it inherited from previous administrations towards Iran that includes weapon and financial proliferation sanctions, cooperative nonproliferation programs and regional partnerships. However, the public statements of Obama reveal a policy of tactical engagement with Iran, while maintaining sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program along the next year that is expected to witness the nuclear Iran. The American efforts to cut the nuclear program in Iran were backed by United Nations Security Council sanctions that aimed to convince the Iranian administration to withdraw the idea of the nuclear activity. Several resolutions issued along from 2006 to 2008 aiming to suspend the enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and banning sales to Iran of technology useful for reprocessing and enrichment activities and dual use items, ordering member states to freeze assets related to that, whether of firms or individuals. Moreover prohibiting transfers of arms by Iran and encourage ban on financial transaction with specific banks. (UNSC reports) Independent form United Nations resolutions, the US administration issued sanctions to eliminate the exposure of American firms or individuals to Iranian firms, thus mobilizing the public to stand against the nuclear and weapon programs. The policies come in form of list of executive orders and sanctions that prohibit and trade activities with Iran, and denying its access to financial or technological resources that would support the nuclear weapon program. The sanctions are issued from 1987 and till 2005 imposing freezing of assets to those who are engaged in proliferation of WMD and countries that commit, threaten to commit, or support terroristic groups. Also ban of exports and imports of Iranian products and goods. These strategies are ought to threaten the Iranian economy thus affect the completion of the nuclear weapon program. In fact, the delay of clash between Iran and

US is result of the keen of the Iranian leaders to survive the regime. The rulers in Iran recognize the limits of their power and thus mixed the revolutionary anxiety with pragmatic adjustment, to avoid the happening of strike before the completion of the nuclear weapon. Although supporting opposing groups to Israel and US interests, like Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran did not engage in any military confrontation with either Israel or US. Iran vigoursly defended the rights of Palestinians and condemned the Israeli violations of human rights in the west bank and gaza strip, but it was neutral regarding the chinese and Russian slaughtering of chechens and suppressing muslim Uighurs (Lindsay 2010) This was viewed by Lindsay as a way to obtain diplomatic cover from china and maintain commercial activities with China to balance the economy after the US policies and laws regarding ban of trade with Iran and the UNSC resolutions. As we know from history, the relation between Intelligence reports and congressional and presidential decision-making process is not directly clear. The intelligence reports can be manipulated to adhere the foreign policy formed previously by the administration. The intelligence assessments of 2007 regarding threats directed to US notes that the Iran retains the option to develop a nuclear weapon and possess the technologies needed to develop one, however the intelligence is not certain about whether Iran intend to produce the weapon, it notes twice the Iran could develop a nuclear weapon whenever it decides to do so (McConnell 2008). The 2007 report sparked a lot of criticism in Israel and US for downplaying the issue of nuclear weapon development. However in 2009, the intelligence report reported some differences emphasizing that Iran is making significant progress in two out of three areas regarding the enriching of Uranium and accomplishment of processes needed to develop the weapon. The 2007 report emphasized

the freezing of nuclear program in 2003, the 2009 report, emphasize the progress accomplished in those two areas, which indicates the progress achieved towards the completion of the nuclear weapon. May be the intelligence was manipulated to satisfy the public in US and Israel, however, the US policies achieved from 2009 and till now indicate no close striking opportunities, unlike the situation in Iraq. When the intelligence reports reported no dangers from the Iraqi nuclear program, the US administration responded by invading Iraq. The threat of Irans nuclear program to US interests as viewed by the US administration of Obama lies on subverting its neighbors to develop nuclear programs to sustain a balance on the region having a reorder of the geopolitical balance of the Middle East. Also empowering groups like Hamas and Hezbollah thus encouraging terrorism against US and Israel. US would recognize the advent of nuclear weapon in Iran, or even the infrastructure and materials used to assemble the bomb, as a major diplomatic defeat to the United States. Iran is preserving the nuclear program as a way to revive its political unrest in the country and have a powerful resource to have control over the region and defend its alliances like Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. And also defend their own interests and survive the regime. On the other side, the US administration is trying to convince Tehran of the consequences of developing the weapon on relations with Washington and Tell Aviv and on isolating and weakening the Iranian regime, at the same time, putting the military solution on the table ready to use, along with assuring friends and allies in the middle east to be committed to maintain the balance of power in the region in case of strike. The nightmare scenario as described by Lindsay in the article after Iran get the Bomb

will happen if Iran became officially nuclear. Israel will get triggered to launch the nuclear weapon any moment, putting both powers minutes away from obliteration. The geopolitical powers of the region like Egypt, Saudi, and Turkey will move toward developing a nuclear weapon to maintain balance of powers. That would cancel the nonproliferation act enabling a movement of nuclear proliferation around the globe, which absolutely put the US and Israeli interests on stake. So in essence to avoid such a scenario, the Obama administration is taking the legal routes to the point that it has no other choice than using military. On the other hand, the Israeli administration secretly preparing and getting fully ready to either respond to an Iranian attack, or even performing pre-emptive strike once they are sure of the completion of the Iranian nuclear weapon. In my opinion, neither US, Israel or Iran would subject their interests and wage a nuclear war without precise calculations of the outcomes. Every part of the game is waiting to the response of the other. So with all the different policies and approaches by US and Israel administrations, which were demonstrated above, I dont believe the a waging nuclear war between those three powers is intimate

Works Cited
Cook, Stephen A. "Foreign Policy: Don't Fear A Nuclear Armed Iran." NPR Find a Station (2012). Web. <http://www.npr.org/2012/04/03/149906811/foreign-policy-dont-fear-a-nucleararmed-iran>. Gedalyahu, Tzavi Ben. "Obama and Clinton Turn the Screws on Iran." Arutz Sheva 1 Apr. 2012. Print. Goldberg, Jeffrey. "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop IranOr IWill." 31 Mar. 2009. Web. <http://bbc.afgazad.com/Zabanhaye-Eropaei/040309-Netanyahu-to-Obama[1].pdf>. Kam, Ephraim. "America's Intelligence Assessment On The Iranian Nuclear Issue." The Mideast Peace Pulse (2009). Web. <http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/americasintelligence-assessment-iranian-nuclear-issue>. Lindsay, James M. "After Iran Gets The Bomb." (2010). Web. <http://www.catalunyaoberta.cat/statics/files/ForeignAffairs5.pdf>. Ronen, Gil. "69% of Israelis Support US-Israeli Attack on Iran." Arutz Sheva 29 Mar. 2012. Print. Schiff, Ze'ev. "Israel's War With Iran." Foreign Affairs 85.6 (2006). Web. <http://www.jstor.org.library.aucegypt.edu:2048/stable/pdfplus/20032140.pdf?acceptTC =true>. Sharp, Travis. "U.S. Foreign Policy toward Iran in the Obama Era." ISPI Policy Brief. June 2009. Web.

Zaref, Maseh. "U.S. Policy Toward Iran's Nuclear Program." Iran Tracker (2009). Web. <http://www.irantracker.org/us-policy/us-policy-toward-irans-nuclear-program>. Dennis Blair, Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C., February 12, 2009. Michael McConnell, Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C., February 7. 2008.