Iranian missile test raises stakes
NEW YORK, July 8 (JTA) — Iran’s recent test of a ballistic missile capable of hitting Israel heightens the risk the Muslim fundamentalist state poses to Israel and to American interests in the region, pro-Israel advocates say.
Opponents of President Bush may suggest that Washington’s recent decision to ratchet up the rhetoric against Iran is meant to distract Americans from the domestic economy and keep the public rallied around the administration.
But pro-Israel advocates say nothing negates the threat posed by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and Tehran’s active undermining of U.S. policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
American Jewish officials are trying to keep the Bush administration focused on Iran, as they see signs that support for pro-democracy demonstrators may be diminishing.
The concern is sparked by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent comments that the United States should not get involved in a “family fight” in Iran.
In contrast to the situation before the recent Iraq war, when the United States seemed to be standing against the world, the mullahs who control Iran now face mounting international pressure — particularly from the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency — and from the European Union and Russia.
Observers say the increasingly united front abroad, coupled with frequent demonstrations by ordinary Iranians demanding more freedom, ultimately benefits Israel: The noose may be closing around a regime the Jewish state sees as more dangerous than Iraq.
“Every day Iran calls for the extermination of Israel and they have weapons aimed at Israel, so this is not a hypothetical,” says Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “So, of course, anything done to minimize the danger Iran represents is good for Israel.”
But Hoenlein and others say it’s not only in Israel’s interest for Iran to be reined in or undergo a regime change: A nuclear Iran also may threaten its Arab neighbors, spark an arms race in the region and perhaps one day even threaten targets in the West.
The missiles tested recently, for example, are able to hit U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
At the same time, Iranian support for extremist Palestinians and groups like Hezbollah torpedoes any aspiration for peace that Arab moderates may hold, analysts say.
“This is an Israeli issue and it’s not an Israeli issue,” says Matthew Levitt, a terrorism expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Iran is the most frenetic sponsor of terrorism in the world and works most actively to undermine the peace process, which is why this effort is being led primarily by the Americans and the Europeans — and not on Israel’s behalf.”
Iran reportedly initiated its nuclear program back in 1957 under the shah, with the assistance of the United States. The program was shelved after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but was restarted in the 1990s with the help of countries such as Russia and Pakistan.
With Washington-Tehran relations hostile, the United States opted for a policy of containment with barely any dialogue. In contrast, Europe chose engagement, believing relations with Iran would allow it to offer “constructive criticism.”
The Iranian threat increased this summer with the final test of the Shihab-3. The State Department has said it is concerned about Iran’s missile development, and Israel is nervous about the combination of weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them.
“Having these two capabilities in the hands of a regime like the one you have in Iran, one that openly calls for the destruction of Israel, is something we find highly problematic,” said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
Analysts estimate it would be four to seven years before Iran would have all of the pieces in place to produce nuclear weapons and transport them.
“It makes it all the more urgent to ensure that they don’t get their hands on nuclear weapons,” said Rebecca Dinar, spokeswoman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby.
The administration and the international energy agency, known as IAEA, were talking about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons for some time.
Last August, the Iranian exile group National Council of Resistance accused Iran of trying to produce weapons-grade uranium, a charge later supported by satellite pictures taken by the U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security.
IAEA officials confirmed the production potential on a February visit to Iraq.
“The U.S. will focus on stopping Iran getting nuclear weapons,” U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials in mid-March.
The IAEA last month pressed Iran to sign a more restrictive protocol of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The NPT allowed countries to develop nuclear materials as long as they were declared and inspections of nuclear facilities were permitted, with advanced notice.
The treaty was beefed up after 1991, when the first Persian Gulf War revealed Iraq’s secret nuclear program, humiliating the IAEA.
The new NPT protocol allows for more intrusive surprise inspections of any facility within a ratifying nation’s territory. Iran refuses to ratify the new protocol.
On top of this, there has been mounting tension between America and Iran over Iran’s role in allegedly roiling the waters in neighboring Afghanistan; supporting the uprising of fellow Shi’ites in Iraq and attacks on U.S. troops stationed there; providing sanctuary to Al-Qaida operatives; and funneling arms, cash and other support to Palestinian terrorist groups.
President Bush last month said he would “not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon” by Iran. Analysts took this as a bit of saber-rattling to compel Iran to accept inspections, since the consensus in Washington seems to be that force is a last resort.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin — who recently reassured U.S. Jewish leaders of his opposition to a nuclear Iran, but whose country has helped Iran build a controversial nuclear power plant — also appealed to Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. The IAEA recently criticized Iran for possibly using civilian nuclear facilities to make weapons.
The European Union, Iran’s largest trading partner, has not suspended trade talks with Tehran but last month endorsed coercive measures “and, as appropriate, the use of force” against any government found to be lying to the IAEA about its nuclear intentions.
“Just as there are more people here who think some carrot needs to go with the stick, on the European side there’s a recognition that their policy also failed and that there needs to be more stick with the carrot,” said Scott Lasensky, a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations.
“For Israel and supporters of Israel, this growing convergence between the Americans and Europeans is only a positive development,” Lasensky said. “A more cohesive coalition gives the Iranians fewer opportunities to exploit the differences and makes the stick of containment more credible.”
However, Iran-watchers note that there is broad consensus within Iran that nuclear weapons are a point of national pride and that the country must be nuclear for self-defense purposes.
That, and the fact that an Iranian nuke reportedly is far along in development, leads some observers to suggest that the Bush administration should focus more on who pushes the buttons in Iran by supporting pro-democracy forces.
Hoenlein said he broached the subject of support for Iran’s democracy movement with National Security Council officials last week.
He remains concerned about Powell’s comments last week, in which the secretary told a national radio show, “The best thing we can do right now is not get in the middle of this family fight too deeply.”
Observers say a nuclear Iran with its current radical leadership would be able to able to resist virtually any sort of international pressure to reform domestically or stop supporting terrorism.
But the worst-case scenario is that Iran could use its nuclear weapons for offensive, not purely defensive, purposes.
“Not every nuclear country poses a threat. But Iran has made its intentions clear,” Dinar said. “Iranian officials have stated on numerous occasions that they would like to ‘blow Israel into the sea.’ And that’s what makes its growing capability so threatening.”
Indeed, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who still wields considerable influence in Iran, was quoted in December 2001 saying that “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counterstrike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.”
The notion of nuclear-induced “mutually assured destruction,” which helped keep the U.S.-Soviet status quo during the Cold War, may not deter the Iranians, says Pooya Dayanim, president of the Los Angeles-based Iranian Jewish Public Affairs Committee.
“If they’re thinking their days are numbered, they may consider this to be their last revolutionary act: going down in history as having destroyed ‘the Zionist entity,’ ” Dayanim says. “They’d figure there would still be a billion Muslims left.”
(JTA correspondent Matthew E. Berger in Washington contributed to this report.) JTA END
Choose from the options below.
The Prophecy Blog 