Matthew Bell

Matthew Bell

Matthew Bell is a Jerusalem-based Middle East reporter. He has been with The World since 2001 and has filed stories from cities across the US and abroad.

  • |
  • ALL POSTS

Israel’s ‘Alliance of Evil’

Iran's President Ahmadinejad (Photo: Marcello Casal Jr/ABr)

Iran's President Ahmadinejad (Photo: Marcello Casal Jr/ABr)

United Nations nuclear inspectors were in Iran Monday. Their top priority is to seek answers about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran claims its nuclear activities are for civilian energy use only. But the United States and other western nations have serious doubts about that. And there are rumors that Israel is considering a pre-emptive military strike aimed at preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

The arrival of UN inspectors in Tehran follows a series of high-level meetings between Israel officials and President Obama’s National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon. He’s thought to have delivered a fairly straightforward message. If you’re planning pre-emptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities: don’t do it. At least not yet.

That’s the gist of what several US officials have been saying publicly. The Pentagon’s top general, Martin Dempsey, Sunday appeared on CNN. And he said “it’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.”

In response, Israeli officials are being coy.

“It’s not prudent now? Does this mean that it’s prudent later?” asked Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor, who gave a briefing Monday in Jerusalem. The event was sponsored by The Israel Project.

Both the US and Israel have long said that all options for preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon must remain on the table. But are the two allies really walking hand-in-hand? Meridor declined to answer that question directly as well.

“Sometimes we have to stand alone and we have done it in the past. Sometimes we can do it alongside many others. This time, I think, the world as a whole needs to see Iran stop this project,” Meridor said.

The Israelis often point out that Iran’s nuclear program is a rare example of international consensus. Not just Israel, they say, but the US, European and Asian countries, along with much of the Arab world, have all expressed deep concerns about the prospect of Iran building a nuclear weapon. But the saber-rattling from Israel is probably loudest. Defense Minister Ehud Barak is thought to be in favor of launching military strikes sooner rather than later, before Iran reaches the so-called “zone of immunity.”

Deputy Prime Minister Meridor was asked how long it might take Iran to reach that point of no return. He said setting arbitrary deadlines isn’t helpful. Iran needs to be stopped. Period.

“We all know that if nothing is done, they will be there. Iran feels now the sanctions. They feel the value of the rial going down. They feel the pressure in their markets. And I think that we should continue with that. Without defining the exact date. They don’t yet have a bomb and they shouldn’t have it.”

For its part, Iran has responded to international pressure by cutting off oil sales to France and Britain. Monday, the official Iranian news agency said that embargo could be extended to other European countries as well. Iran’s military says it’s moving forward with exercises this week aimed at boosting its air defenses near nuclear sites. The Islamic Republic also just announced new progress on its nuclear activities. It said thousands more centrifuges to enrich uranium have been put online.

Such defiant moves could be seen by Israel as reasons to act on its own, and soon. Military analyst Michael Clarke at the Royal United Services Institute in London said the other timetable at play here is the US presidential election.

“There is a sense, unspoken, that anything that happens this year, that is Israeli-inspired, will be very, very hard either for an American president or an American candidate to condemn,” Clarke said. “So, there is a sense that this is a critical year. Objectively, not much has changed. But the timetable has ramped up.”

A big unanswered question is whether the Israeli air force – acting alone – has the capability to delay Iran’s nuclear progress for long. There’s no shortage of military experts who have serious doubts.

Discussion

2 comments for “Israel’s ‘Alliance of Evil’”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HJCI7X475NRXONSYAVZWOFK6HI Jennifer

    What was so appalling in the two reports on The World this afternoon
    (Monday 20 February) was the omission of ANY reference to repeated
    Iranian threats to destroy Israel. Mullins, Bell, and the interviewees
    kept talking of the prospect or mechanics of an Israeli attack. They
    kept talking of Us warnings not to.

    There was not a single word of the repeated Iranian threats from many
    leaders, not just Pres. Ahmadinejad, that they will destroy Israel.
    There was not a single reference to the boast by Ayatollah Khamenei, and
    others, that just one bomb could do the job. There was not a single
    reference to Iranian support of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are
    sworn to Israel’s destruction and the ethnic cleansing of all its Jews.

    There are real attacks on Israel, not hypothetical ones, that continue
    to take place. On Saturday, a Grad rocket hit Beersheba. There have been
    30 rocket attacks so far this year. Yet none of this gets a mention as
    The World seeks to hype prospects of an Israeli attack, and to almost
    build up sympathy for the Iranian regime, while portraying Israel as
    feckless and aggressive.

    Israel would surely love a return to its formerly friendly relations
    with Iran. Israelis have no real conflict with the Iranian people, many
    of whom are suffering under the regime. However, Israel  cannot ignore
    public threats, nor attacks like the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community
    center in Buenos Aires, Argentine, that killed nearly 90 civilians. The
    Argentine has sought the extradition of one of Iran’s current defense
    ministers, Ahmed Vahidi, for his role in that attack. Why is this sort
    of balancing detail absent from your coverage?

  • Anonymous

    Iran faces a delicate issue.  On the one hand it wants to show the world all its got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show ‘n tell will give its enemies a road map to bomb it.Saddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing that Iraq still had WMD. Bluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Amadijan. But since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved so high, maybe we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now.  On the eve of a threat to attack it, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it’s got.  Such great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in  need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal?“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel,” you say. True, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either.  Surely, however, we can see beyond Iran’s hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose.  Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Amadijan?  He sure has not forgotten that he is not loved in Iran. Nor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It even becomes a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by the theocratic regime. Quite Clever work by Amadijan — and not a rial spent or a bullet fired. So why are we letting this crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up — and to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again.Can we not see the desperate attempts of an unpopular regime simply trying to hold on to power?