Iran dilemma leaves many open questions

Is it a smart move to build an international coalition by using economic carrots, not confrontation, to convince one of the world's most dangerous regimes to abandon its nuclear ambitions, or is it Munich 1938 all over again?

Publicly, Jewish leaders say the Bush administration's recent about-face in agreeing to talk to Iran and participate in a European-led package of economic and political incentives is a good decision; in private, they're not so sure.

That ambivalence reflects the fact that there are precious few options for stopping a determined Iran, especially not with the United States militarily over-extended and diplomatically weakened by the Iraq war.

It reflects a dilemma for Jewish leaders who have good historic reasons to take President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel seriously, but who also know that his invective may be more pragmatic than ideological, meant to boost him domestically and thrust Israel to center stage in the conflict with the West.

In recent days major op-ed pages have chewed on this horrifying question: Does Iran really mean to get A-bombs so it can fulfill Ahmadinejad's vision of a world without Israel?

Some analysts say the Iranian leader should be taken at his word.

At a recent Pew Forum event Bernard Lewis, a top Mideast scholar, said, "I am inclined to believe in the sincerity of Ahmadinejad. I think that he really believes the apocalyptic language that he is using."

According to this view, Ahmadinejad's fanaticism is such that he would even be willing to turn Iran into a graveyard of charred martyrs, which is the likely result if he ever used his atomic weapons against a nuclear-equipped Israel.

Others point out that Hitler telegraphed his intentions about the Jews long before he embarked on the Final Solution, but the world brushed it off as just bluster — with tragic consequences.

But some experts say Ahmadinejad is a pragmatist who is deliberately using inflammatory rhetoric about Israel, the Holocaust and Jews for both domestic and international purposes.

The talk about Israel "has been a calculated move to make Israel an explicit factor in the Iranian nuclear stand-off in order to portray this conflict increasingly as between the Islamic world and Israel and the West," wrote Dr. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, in material distributed by the Israel Policy Forum.

"This has a strong appeal on the Arab and Muslim streets, and it's making it much more difficult for Arab governments — particularly the Arab sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf — to take the American side against Iran."

Parsi went on to say, "I don't think we can infer that Ahmadinejad would carry out any of his threats if he could, because the root of his statement has little to do with Israel itself, and secondly, because of Israel's deterrence capabilities. The Iranians are not suicidal."

Ahmadinejad wants Washington, Jerusalem and Jews in this country to react angrily to his venomous statements, some observers say; doing so just plays into his hands.

But can Israel afford to take the chance that it's just rhetoric — especially when a single nuclear attack could wipe out a substantial part of the tiny Jewish state?

The dilemmas facing Jewish leaders are compounded by the daunting realities facing U.S. policymakers.

Iran's nuclear weapons program is dispersed and hardened; effective surgical air strikes are a realistic possibility only in the imaginations of those optimists who believed pacifying Iran would be a piece of cake.

Iran's leaders aren't stupid; they know military action is already breaking the bank in this country and that the American people have no appetite for another preemptive war.

Sanctions are difficult against a country that holds the developed world over a barrel — or, more precisely, millions of barrels of oil. Diplomatic pressure works only when the most powerful, richest nations are united — something unlikely to happen as long as so many have so much to gain by appeasing Tehran.

And international diplomatic pressure loses much of its force without a credible threat of military action, something that is diminishing every day the Iraq war continues.

The result is a cautious, pragmatic and very nervous approach by Jewish leaders.

Most are willing to give the administration time to pursue its latest diplomatic strategy, even though few give it much chance of succeeding.

Many believe there is little choice but to continue pressing the administration to remain tough with Iran, without explaining what "tough" means in a context of limited, imperfect options. None but the most hard-line are pressing for a military solution that has grave risks for this nation, for an Israel that would be the first target of Iranian retaliation and for an American Jewish community that could get the blame for the conflict.

Most will continue trying to temper their reactions to Ahmadinejad's bellicose, belligerent rhetoric, on the chance it's all part of his diplomatic game — but still speak up on the horrifying chance it is not.




James D. Besser is a Washington correspondent for Jewish newspapers across the country.