Israel's Posturing: Behind
Netanyahu and Barak's Threats to Attack Iran
Successive Israeli
governments have consistently inhibited in the past any public discussion about
Iran's nuclear program and what Israel might do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent weeks
however, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have been openly
discussing the issue while intimating their readiness to take whatever actions
necessary to eliminate the Iranian threat. The question is why Netanyahu and
Barak have chosen to "advertise" their deep concerns now and why they
have such an urgency to act at this particular juncture, both of which have
prompted newspaper reporters and bandits to speculate about what the real
intentions are behind this public exposure and what is to be expected.
Meanwhile, former and current officials, including President Peres, have expressed pointed objections to taking
any unilateral military strikes against Iran, insisting that if such action
became necessary, it must certainly be led by the U.S. to shield Israel from
being singled out and blamed for the potentially disastrous regional
consequences.Having concluded that sanctions and diplomacy have failed as Iran
is either technologically nearing the point of no return or achieving a zone of
immunity that will make their most advanced nuclear plants at Fordo (near Qom)
impregnable to air attack, the Netanyahu government has decided on a new
strategy designed to achieve multiple purposes. While Israel's determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has not changed,
the new strategy is meant to strongly convey that Israel is not bluffing. Israel's groundwork for the new strategy is as
follows: Israel will alert its
closest ally, the U.S., alarm
its European friends, credibly threaten
Iran and gather more information, warn
other enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, test the private sentiments and public reactions of the Sunni Arab
states, and will finally prepare
the Israeli public while laying in wait for the right moment to strike, should
everything else fail.The Netanyahu government has already expressed its
displeasure with the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to prevent
Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whereas many Israelis believe that
President Obama's credibility is on the line and he will act militarily should
it become necessary, others, including Netanyahu and Barak, are not so sure.
They are concerned that Obama may eventually have to choose between preventing
or containing Iran and will settle on the latter by providing Israel and other
Arab allies in the region with some kind of security umbrella.Netanyahu and
Barak are troubled by the fact that Obama has relied excessively on a
diplomatic solution knowing full well that the Iranians are masters of playing
for time. Moreover, he chose to impose gradual sanctions to which the Iranian
government was able to adjust instead of inflicting real, crippling sanctions,
especially after the failure of the first few sets of negotiations, which could
have forced Tehran to change course. This approach, from the Israeli perspective, played into
Iran's hand while engaging the P5+1 (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France,
Russia and China plus Germany) in futile negotiations that have never stood a
chance of success.By asking the P5+1 to declare that the talks with Iran have
failed, Netanyahu is alerting the U.S. that time is of the essence and
challenging Obama to take more decisive actions against Iran. Netanyahu's
rationale is that since Obama seeks to prevent an Israeli attack in an election
year, he will be under immense pressure from his presidential rival, Mitt
Romney, not only to adopt a final set of truly crippling sanctions but
tobe clear about his willingness to use force against Iran before it reaches
the point of no return or enters the zone of immunity.Netanyahu's message of
alarm is directed against the EU, Turkey and China, which will be the most
affected by the potential disruption of oil supplies should the Strait of
Hormuz become imperiled. Netanyahu and Barak are convinced that the EU in
particular is engaged in wishful thinking, believing that continuing diplomatic
efforts coupled with stiffer sanctions will force the Mullahs to come to their
senses. The EU clearly view Netanyahu as overzealous about Israel's national security, are extremely worried about
an Israeli attack and are convinced that the repercussions will be
catastrophic. Thus, for them, no attack should be contemplated as long as Iran
is willing to continue to talk.Using the repeated Iranian existential threat
against Israel, and while observing the Western powers' ineptitude in the past
in dealing with the genocide in Bosnia, Sudan and now the wholesale slaughter
in Syria, Netanyahu has little faith in what the EU can, or will, do to bring
Iran to a halt. The EU, from Netanyahu's perspective, could have done a great
deal more to cripple Iran economically but it still has yet to do so. At
the same time, the EU refuses to declare Hezbollah, Iran's prime surrogate but
Israel's staunchest enemy, as a terrorist organization while it continues to allow
Hezbollah to freely raise tens of millions of dollars in Europe, when much of
it is used for buying armaments to target Israel.The direct threat against Iran
is based on Netanyahu and Barak's calculation that although public discussion
about the potential attack on Iran provides Tehran more time to prepare for the
worst, it will provide Israel with certain advantages. Fear of an imminent
Israeli attack will force the Iranian authorities to take additional security
measures to protect their nuclear facilities, which will reveal Iran's
preparedness and capabilities, and expose its weaknesses and how much of its
boastings of a damaging counter-attack against Israel are in fact accurate.
Importantly, Israel will also be in a position to better assess the Iranian public's reaction
and whether the rumors of an imminent attack will precipitate panic, which may
reveal how the Iranian authorities react and pacify the public. More than
anything, Israel wants Iran to take its threats seriously, which explains why Netanyahu and Barak
openly stated that when it comes to Israel's national security, Israel must, in the final analysis, rely only on
itself. Netanyahu's and Barak's exposé is also intended to warn all those who
might think of coming to Iran's aid by engaging Israel on another front (in
particular with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas) that they should think
twice before they dare to provoke Israel. By openly discussing their
intentions, Netanyahu and Barak want these groups or states to assume that Israel would not have discussed such a sensitive
national security matter had it not taken into full consideration their
potential involvements. The message to Hezbollah is clear: there will not be a
repeat of the 2006 war, Israel will break its back and that this time
around no one will come to its aid considering Syria is in shambles and Iran is
under intense economic pressure and too busy to deal with the potentially
catastrophic effects of an Israeli attack.The other target of Israel's open
discourse on attacking Iran is to test the Sunni Arabs, especially the Gulf
States led by Saudi Arabia. There have been ongoing tacit discussions between Israel and the Gulf States about the potential Israeli strike and how that
might affect both their public reactions and their private interests and
concerns. There is no doubt that all Sunni Arab states would prefer to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons peacefully.
But after failing to do so by diplomatic means, they would support an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities, whether the attack is carried out by Israel, the
U.S. or through a joint effort. Saudi Arabia in particular sees the conflict
between Shiites verses Sunnis in terms of regional domination with a focus on
the Gulf, and views Iran with nuclear weapons as a nightmarish scenario that
must be prevented at all costs. Finally, Netanyahu's and Barak's message was
intended for the Israeli public not only to prepare them for a potential
Iranian counter-attack but to begin psychological and logistical preparations (
including the distributions of gas masks, stocking underground shelters with
food and water) to avoid public panic and rally the nation around the
government's prospective actions. Although the Netanyahu government is not
dismissive of the voices of the Israelis who consider a unilateral attack as
ill-conceived and extremely risky, Netanyahu and Barak want to demonstrate
unshakable resolve in the face of an existential threat and that the public can
ultimately trust their judgment. Moreover, such an exercise, even if a strike
is avoided either because of the United States or because of
Netanyahu's/Barak's readiness to act, will be good for Israel and good for the
entire region as long as Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.Israel has time
and again stated in the past that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons or the technology to quickly assemble such arsenals. The Israelis
insist that whatever repercussions arise from attacking Iran's nuclear
facilities will be far less ominous than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear
capabilities, which will have far more reaching geopolitical and security
implications that will adversely affect every state in the region.In the final
analysis, an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities may not come as soon as
many predict. The strike can and may well happen but it is very unlikely that
such an incredibly ominous undertaking will occur without a minimum of U.S. acquiescence, if not outright support and
direct involvement. Regardless of how much Netanyahu and Barak may be sure of
themselves and Israel's military capabilities, they cannot afford to make any
mistakes or miscalculations because Israel's future is on the line.Yet, exactly
because of that, no one should think for a moment that Israel is bluffing. Netanyahu
and Barak have concluded that diplomacy has run its course and only
extraordinary, crippling and immediate sanctions may still have a slim chance
of success. Once Israel determines that Iran has either achieved the point of
no return or is about to reach the zone of immunity and the U.S. is not
prepared to take military action, Israel will attack Iran singlehandedly
and no consequences of such an attack, from the Israeli perspective, will fare
against such an existential threat.
China's scramble for patents
China's ambitious drive
to produce millions of new patents in the next few years as part of a switch
from a "made in China" to "designed in China" economic
model will curtail innovation standards, a European study warned today.China is
seeking to transform itself from being the world's factory floor into a global
pioneer by setting ambitious state-mandated patent targets -- a goal that has
already resulted in it surpassing the United States last year in patent
filings.The European Union Chamber of Commerce said in a report that China
filed more than 1.6 million patent applications in 2011, but only 32% met the
highest threshold for patent quality - new inventions.The study noted that
while China's innovation potential is "impressive", its actual innovation
is "overhyped"."This explosion (of patent applications) has come
with a price in terms of the quality and mix of patents. This is not in the
right direction," European Chamber Secretary General Dirk Moens said.In
some cases, financial incentives and performance evaluations for state-owned
firms, officials and academics drive the filing of low-quality patents as they
seek to meet quotas - 2 million annually by 2015 under one national plan.In
addition to inventions, China also gives patents for designs and "utility
models", incremental developments that can advance an existing product but
rarely result in technological breakthroughs.The United States does not use
utility model patents, though some developed countries, such as Germany, do.Sixty-five percent of
patent applications filed by medium and large-sized Chinese state-owned
enterprises in recent years have been for the lower end design or utility model
patents, making them among the country's least effective innovators, the study
said."One cannot drive or 'force' creativity, but only nurture it, whereas
creativity leading to breakthroughs of the type that typically produce the
highest quality patents at best comes in spurts," it said, noting that at
least 20 countries have greater innovation potential than the world's second
largest economy.But Elliot Papageorgiou, an intellectual property expert at
Rouse Legal in Shanghai, said utility model patents are good for China."In
developing economies, you're not going to get a new wheel, you're going to get
an improved or cheaper wheel," Papageorgiou.Indigenous rules rile foreigners
Experts say weak intellectual property rights (IPR) have scared off some
foreign firms from transferring technology or filing patents in China. Last
year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner lamented Beijing's lax controls
that made possible the "systematic stealing" of American
innovations.China has said it would drop some of its "indigenous
innovation" rules that have riled foreign companies who say access to
government equipment and technology orders hinge on their transferring patents
and other intellectual property to Chinese firms or partners.But the EU Chamber
study said indigenous intellectual property ownership was still a requirement
for firms to access some Chinese government financing and subsidies, with the
language writ large into many of the country's more than 10 national and 150
sub-national patents target plans."The essence of the IIP (indigenous
innovation policy) system, in terms of setting forth controversial IPR
requirements with financial incentives,
appears very much still in force," the study said.
