Post Webcast: “Re-think Iran"

Often, in situations regarding anything serious, there tend to be two positions – do this, or do that. Yet, by definition, such “discussions” exclude any potential solutions which are new, exciting, or simply unthought-of. A nuclear Iran would pose a potential threat to Israel; there are no questions about this. But where is the spectrum of ideas? Where is the discussion?

In last week’s Leadel Live panel, at the IDC Herzliya, three experts in the field came together to discuss the Iranian threat to a global Web-audience watching and interacting via live Webcast. Yossi Melman is an intelligence and military correspondent for Haaretz newspaper, and co-authored, along with Meir Javadanfar, the book “The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran.” Meir Javadanfar is manages the Middle East Economic and Political Analysis (MEEPAS). Dr. Dan Scheuftan is a senior Israeli academic and the deputy director of the National Security Studies Canter at the University of Haifa.

The first topic addressed was the new set of sanctions imposed against Iran. Yossi Melman reminded us that these are the fourth set of sanctions to be imposed. The first three were imposed by the United Nations Security Council in 2006, and targeted individuals and corporations which were believed to be involved in aiding Iran in its nuclear ambitions. These new sanctions, Melman noted, while being more targeted (such as targeting Iranian shipping and banking), are still essentially toothless, with no proposed ways of actual or universal enforcement. Meir Javadanfar noted that Obama’s open policy with Russia and China has helped move them away from the Iranian camp, and into the American one, respectively. This, he states, is a great accomplishment, and lends credence to the hope that the world will, in fact, monitor Iranian shipping. Dan Scheuftan, however, disagreed with this positive assessment. He argued that Obama’s attempts at openness are being viewed by Iran as appeasement, and by the world, in general, and particularly in the Muslim world, as weakness.  Obama, he claimed, is unable to take a hard stance, and lead a united international front against Iran. The U.S., therefore, is acting as a serious “impediment” to stopping Iran. Melman, followed up on this, noting that Russia’s Putin had stated that this set of sanctions essentially take a military option off the table.

This brought the panel to its next topic, of why there isn’t much talk of a military option. Javadanfar believed that this is because there is a lack of hard evidence which suggests that Iran is really only two or three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb. Most of Europe, he stated, believe they have a long time, and therefore, do not feel pressured to move towards a military option. Scheuftan, however, disagreed with this perspective, because it is based upon the concept that “the Americans and Europeans will do what’s right” and are only delaying such action because they do not, yet, believe that danger is imminent. Europe, he argued, has a history of not responding to real threats in a timely manner, and America, under the Obama administration, is too interested in engagement and/or appeasement with radicals to contend with the threat. Everyone in the Middle East, he claimed, believes that Iran is going nuclear, and the leading regional powers, therefore, such as Turkey and Egypt, are becoming radical so as to be on the winning side of any future conflict. “The signal from Washington,” Scheuftan said, “is that the Iranians are winning.”

Javadanfar, however, believes that “the Iranians are losing.” Noting the almost manifestation of the “green revolution” last year in Iran, he stated, that the calls for openness and reform are directly correlated to Obama’s outstretched arm to Iran. This act, he argued, counters the Iranian regimes claims of American colonialism and calls for regime change, which leads to instability within Iran. He, also, noted that there is clear and huge division and infighting amongst the conservatives in Iran, and, as evidence to this, Ahmadinejad is already preparing to “arrange” the upcoming municipal elections. Melman supported this view, stating that, should things continue in the current fashion, the Iranian regime will collapse. Yet, he noted that that collapse is not soon in coming, and is insure whether Israel, and the West, can afford to wait.

With regards to a potential military strike, Javadanfar raised the issue of a likely political outfall which would occur if Israel acted without American backing. Melman stated that, on a practical level, Israel does not have the force to effectively strike Iran. Israel, he claimed, only has a couple hundred planes which can be deployed, and that intelligence is lacking as to which sites are the most important targets. The U.S., he said, have the capability, but are unwilling to use it, believing that a strike against Iran would cause Iran to negatively interfere in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scheuftan, however, noted that if may not be necessary to destroy all of the elements of the nuclear program. It is possible to “hit” Iran hard enough with more general targets to convince them to give up their program; particularly if U.S. is doing the striking. Israel can come and go, perhaps as many at three times, and can hit pinpointed targets, but the U.S., he noted, has a strategic air force, which could destroy Iran and make it impossible for Iran to continue. Yet, according to Scheuftan, Obama’s is not a determined American administration, and no one in Iran is considering abandoning the nuclear program, as no one in Iran truly thinks that they are in danger from the West. Down the line, he noted, sanctions and blockades can hurt Iran, but they can only work if a military option is still on the table.

Next, the panel addressed why Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear bomb. Javadanfar contended that it is important for Khamenei to have the bomb, because it would keep Iran isolated, from the West. Relations with the West, he argued, would destroy the regime. As such, Khamenei, he claimed, would view an El-Al flight or a diplomatic visit by Air Force One as threats to the regime. Further, he noted that Iran is interested in obtaining the bomb as a way to threaten or rival Turkey. Pointing out Gaza, he stated, one sees Turkish flags, and babies being named Erdogan. “No one,” he stated, “is calling their kids Ahmadinejad.” They gladly accept Iran’s money, but they do not trust that Iran will follow through on its word to attack Israel; but they trust Turkey. Scheuftan argued that Iran is truly intended upon changing the world and having regional hegemony. At the moment, Turkey is an ally; if a potential threat down the road. He, also, noted that there could even, potentially, exist an agreement between Iran and Turkey similar to that which existed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which promised that if the latter party helped the former in obtaining nuclear capabilities, the former would provide the latter with said capabilities, at an undetermined later date. Melman agreed that Iran is trying to change the region.

Last, the panel discussed what is to be done about this threat. Melman contended that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, and that, rather than focus on Iran, Israel should act in making peace with the Palestinians and other Arab nations, and contend with its domestic concerns. Javadanfar concurred that Israel must focus on more domestic issues. “The strength of a country,” he said, “depends on its government. We expect our government to view Iran as a danger.” Yet, the Palestinians, he argued, pose the true existential danger. Moreover, he raised concerns regarding the demography of Israel, with rapidly growing Arab and Haredi sectors.  “We have to address Iran,” he said, but we ought not, “take our eyes off the ball, here in Israel.” Scheuftan, however, disagreed. He agreed that it is crucial for Israel to contend with the Palestinians, and as a unilateralist, he believes that Israel can do this, unilaterally if necessary. Iran, however, “is beyond our capabilities.” Concerned that Iran does, in fact, pose an existential threat to Israel, he voiced concern that Israel does not have many options open to contend with Iran, without U.S. support. Further, he argued that concluding, he said “More radicalism is going to occur throughout the region, because they will be assuming, wrongly, but nonetheless, assuming, that they will have an Iranian nuclear umbrella.”

As one can tell, discussions on Iran tend to fall into two camps – either Iran is not dangerous or not a concern, or that a military strike of sorts is positively necessary. But, surely, things are never as simple as such a statement implies. Things are not black and white, but shades of grey. Therefore, we invite you to continue the conversation, and share with us your thoughts, ideas, and perceptions. Perhaps together, we can voice a thought, which, at present, is absent from the marketplace of ideas.

Don't believe us? Have a watch for yourself...