Just talk of War

Considering the column space and airtime it has taken, the story that has predominantly shaped the debate this month is the speculation on whether or not Israel will go for an unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. It all started when The Washington Post’s David Ignatius wrote acolumn about the mounting concerns within the Obama Administration that “Israel will attack Iran militarily over the next few months.” 

Ignatius attributed US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, to have privately said, or held, “there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb.” 

Ignatius further adds: “Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the US could then stop them militarily. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn’t want to leave the fate of Israel dependent on American action, which would be triggered by intelligence that Iran is building a bomb, which it hasn’t done yet.”

Fifteen minutes after the report went live, a mass hysteria engulfed capital cities across the Atlantic, reaching as far as East of Red Sea. Subsequent articles published by the Jerusalem Post and Israeli left-wing newspaper Haaretz further heightened conjecture on the possible attack. Such was the impact that some of the members in the upper echelons in the Obama Administration publicly started expressing concerns and otherwise. And if that was not enough, Britishers tried to increase their own status by putting themselves firmly in the centre of the debate. The Guardian and Daily Mail promptly predicted that the British government might join the adventure if Israelis show even the whiff of hubris. 

There is a twist though. In their euphoria of republishing the text verbatim and then adding their own commentary later, there was a major oversight. Looking closely at the Jerusalem Post report, it becomes evident that it does not actually say in as many words that Israel is planning to attack Iran! What it actually says is that there indeed is a plan in place in case the situation arises, and that forces have practised it lately. Such exercises have been done in the past too, so how does this current exercise makes an attack imminent? 

Similarly, The Haaretz article is dubious as well. However it clearly states that Prime Minister, Netanyahu, has reportedly asked the cabinet to prepare for such an adventure. But if he said it so openly in the cabinet meeting, it is impossible that it did not get leaked to other papers as well. What makes it further dubious is the fact that just a month or so ago, Netanyahu was reported to have advised the cabinet against such adventurism. 

Now let’s also discuss the merit of the original article. Ignatius’ column followed the publication of Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s column in New York Times Sunday Magazine, “Will Israel Attack Iran?” in which Bergman asserts: “After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012.” 

Naturally, the competitor, The Washington Post, in a show of oneupmanship, allowedDavid Ignatius to publish his assumption. But it is funny how nobody asked Ignatius what were his sources that so confidently know the heart and mind of Leon Panetta. Panetta on his part has stopped just short of calling Ignatius a liar. He insists: “I’m not going to comment on that. David Ignatius can write what he will but with regard to what I think and what I view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else.” 

If that is not enough, Jeffrey Goldberg, in one of his commentaries on Bergman’s articles, revealed that the same so-called sources that made Bergman believe that Israel will attack in 2012 had convinced Goldberg, in 2010, that Israel would carry out such a strike by July 2011. There has been a little damage control after that. However, the Washington Post was kind enough to offer a space to Jackson Diehl who in his article “Will Israel really attack Iran?” made some interesting assertions to wave off the imminent threat:

“In reality, Israel is unlikely to launch any attack without the support of the United States, which could easily be drawn into the regional conflict that an air strike would trigger. The new burst of speculation does serve a couple of purposes for Israel, however. It refocuses attention on the Iranian threat, and takes it away from the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations; it raises the pressure on the United States and its allies to increase sanctions and other non-military pressure on Tehran.” As usual, the balancing act came too late and was too little.