The U.S. and Britain on Feb. 19 urged Israel not to attack Iran’s nuclear program as the White House’s national security adviser arrived in the Jewish state, reflecting growing international jitters that the Israelis are poised to strike.
In their warnings, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and the British foreign secretary, William Hague, said an Israeli attack on Iran would have grave consequences for the entire region and urged Israel to give international sanctions against Tehran time to work.
Dempsey said an Israeli attack is “not prudent,” and Hague said it would not be “a wise thing.” It was not known whether their messages were coordinated.
Both Israel and the West believe Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb — a charge Tehran denies. But differences have emerged in how to respond to the perceived threat.
The U.S. and the European Union have imposed harsh new sanctions targeting Iran’s oil sector, the lifeline of the Iranian economy. With the sanctions just beginning to bite, they have expressed optimism that Iran can be persuaded to curb its nuclear ambitions.
On Feb. 19, Iran’s Oil Ministry said it had halted oil shipments to Britain and France in an apparent pre-emptive blow against the EU. The semiofficial Mehr news agency said the National Iranian Oil Co. sent letters to some European refineries with an ultimatum to either sign long-term contracts of two to five years or be cut off. The 27-nation EU accounts for about 18 percent of Iran’s oil exports.
Israel has welcomed the sanctions. But it has pointedly refused to rule out military action and in recent weeks sent signals that its patience is running thin.
Israel believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence, citing Iran’s support for Arab militant groups, its sophisticated arsenal of missiles capable of reaching Israel and its leaders’ calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Last week, Israel accused Iran of being behind a string of attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats in India, Georgia and Thailand.
There is precedent for Israeli action. In 1981, the Israeli air force destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. And in 2007, Israeli warplanes are believed to have destroyed a target that foreign experts think was an unfinished nuclear reactor in Syria.
Analysts, however, have questioned how much an Israeli operation would accomplish. With Iran’s nuclear installations scattered and buried deep underground, it is believed that an Iranian strike would set back, but not destroy, Iran’s nuclear program.
There also are concerns Iran could fire missiles at Israel, get its local proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to launch rockets into the Jewish state, and cause global oil prices to spike by striking targets in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, a bipartisan resolution introduced Feb. 16 on Capitol Hill would seem to shift the longstanding U.S. red line — from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon to having the capability to build one. Such a shift would bring U.S. policy in line with Israel’s approach.
The resolution, a nonbinding Senate statement backed by AIPAC, calls on the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring the capability to build nuclear weapons.
It was introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and has 32 co-sponsors, roughly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. To garner Democratic support, the resolution’s authors toned down its original language.
But the bill already has provoked jitters among Democrats anxious over the specter of war. A number of senators asked Graham to include an explicit denial that the resolution authorized military action; he flatly refused.
Jewish Democratic insiders note that the Democratic Party remains spooked over the political fallout of its acquiescence a decade ago in the buildup to the Iraq War.
“There are clearly plenty of people, especially in the Democratic Party, who are reluctant to drive to war with great rapidity,” a Jewish Democratic activist said.
Tensions with Democrats are expected as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee leads the drive among pro-Israel groups to ratchet up pressure on Iran this year.
AIPAC is expected to make the resolution an “ask” when up to 10,000 activists culminate its annual conference March 4-6 with a day of Capitol Hill lobbying.
The resolution’s sponsors seemed eager to suggest that the resolution reinforces Obama administration policy.
In fact, the president has never used the “nuclear capability” phrasing, speaking instead of Iran “getting,” “obtaining” or “acquiring” a nuclear weapon as a red line.
Senators sponsoring the bill said capability is the more sensible red line when it comes to a belligerent regime such as Iran’s.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government reportedly has pressed the Obama administration to adopt Israel’s “capability” standard. According to media reports, Netanyahu refuses to give the U.S. advance warning of an Israeli strike unless the Obama administration agrees to make capability its red line — to strike before Iran enters an “immunity zone,” in the words of Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
In recent weeks, there have been signs that the Obama administration has moved toward Israel’s posture; Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now speaks of the “development” of a nuclear weapon as a red line.
The JTA’s Ron Kampeas contributed to this report.