U.S. anxiety grows over possible Israeli plans on Iran
European and U.S. diplomats say Obama administration worried about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program.
The Obama administration is
increasingly anxious about Israeli leaders' provocative public comments on Iran's nuclear program but does not have
hard proof that it will strike Iran in the next few months, U.S. and European officials said. The U.S. uncertainty and lack of information
about Israel's plans on Iran were behind an alarming assessment
of the situation reportedly voiced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the
officials said. David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist who specializes in
intelligence matters, reported that Panetta believed there was a "strong likelihood"
that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear program within the next
six months - as early as April, Ignatius wrote. Three U.S. officials who follow the issue said
their understanding was that the United States did not have concrete intelligence
suggesting an attack by Israel on Iran in that time frame was likely or
actively being prepared. The current U.S. assessment is that for months Israel had been making contingency plans
and tentative preparations both for such an operation and for possible Iranian
retaliation, two of the officials said. Nonetheless, said the officials,
indications were that Israel's leadership had not made a final
decision to attack Iran. Ken Pollack, a former White House
and CIA official with expertise on the Gulf, said the sudden rise in public
discussion of an Israeli strike on Iran's known nuclear sites - including
increasingly dire warnings from Israel's leaders - were misleading.
"If Israel has a good military option, they
just take it, they don't talk about it, they don't give warnings," said
Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the
Brookings Institution. "So the fact that they are talking about it, to me,
is one tip-off that they don't have a good military option. "We should
never rule out the possibility of an Israeli strike and the odds have probably
increased in recent months as a result of a number of different factors. But
... there are a lot of disincentives that have prevented Israel from launching a strike for 10
years," Pollack said. Panetta was vague when asked by journalists to
confirm what the Washington Post had reported. "Frankly, I'm not going to
comment on that," he told reporters travelling with him in Europe. "David Ignatius, you know,
can write what he will but, you know, with regards to what I think and what I
view, I consider that to be an area that belongs to me and nobody else."
When pressed further, Panetta said: "There really isn't that much to add
except that, you know, that they're considering this and, you know, we have indicated
our concerns." Asked about the background to Panetta's reported views, one
of the U.S. officials noted that Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak, had been "increasingly
vocal" in expressing concern that Israel might be "running out of
time" to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The official said that
some Israelis have indicated their view that in the next three or four months
the need for Israeli action could become critical. But the view of many career
experts inside the U.S. government is that Iran's nuclear development program,
which Tehran insists is for civilian nuclear purposes, is unlikely to pass the
point of no return in that time. Earlier this week, U.S. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress and publicly re-stated the
long-standing view of U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran's leaders have not yet decided to
build a nuclear weapon. Many, if not most, Western experts believe it would
take Iran at least a year to build a weapon once leaders
decided to go ahead. But some Israel leaders and experts believe that an
attack would have to be launched earlier if Iran's nuclear effort is to be set back
seriously. Barak has warned that Iran's nuclear research could soon pass
into what he called a "zone of immunity," protected from outside
disruption. Barak recently was quoted telling a security conference in Israel, "Later is too late," one
of the U.S. officials noted. The official said that U.S. policymakers had to be concerned
about the possibility of an early Israeli attack "given that Barak and
Netanyahu seem so determined to do it." In January an Iranian nuclear
scientist was killed by man who attached a bomb to his car - the fifth such
attack in two years. Israel's military chief said Iran could expect more such incidents.
One of the U.S. officials said that while Israel may have the military capability to
delay Iran's nuclear effort for a period of time, to deal
the Iranian program a serious and long-term setback would require additional
military power, presumably from the United States. But Panetta's alleged remarks and
other Obama administration's statements indicate the White House is focused on
dissuading Israel from taking action - and distancing itself from an Israel
strike if persuasion fails. A strike on Iran and Iran's response, including
attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital for oil shipments, could
seriously harm the U.S. economy, jeopardizing President Barack Obama's chances
for re-election. Obama also would likely come under intense domestic pressure
to back Israel's actions. "The U.S. is not too excited about engaging
with Israel or being part of anything at this point,"
one official said. A European defence analyst, who has access to classified
all-source intelligence, said that while Iran's behaviour was relatively
predictable, the greatest uncertainties facing the U.S and its allies stemmed
from Israel's stance. Despite internal power squabbles,
the analyst said, Iran has been "quite restrained and
limited in its responses." Recent inflammatory comments by Iranian
leaders, such as threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, were relatively low-intensity
compared to other threats and physical confrontations in the Gulf of past years.
"Israel is, practically speaking, the wild card in the
pack," the analyst said. "We have no specific information on when or
if they will attack but based on their past history and current stance, it is
something we do expect at some point."
