Hawks and Doves

The news out of the Middle East this week continues to prove interesting as the debate between the U.S. and Israel over Iran’s nuclear program and how best to deal with it pushes onwards. Several senior Obama administration officials are already in the region, including Secretary Gates and George Mitchell, with more slated to arrive this week. Despite claims from both Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stressing cooperation between the two countries and the “highly positive atmosphere” of the talks, statements from the two men appear to differ. Said Barak, raising the possibility of military strikes against Iran:

We clearly believe that no options should be removed from the table. This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend others to take the same position, but we do not dictate to anyone.

Gates, on the other hand, adopted a much more reserved approach:

I think we’re in full agreement [with Israel] on the negative consequences of Iran obtaining this kind of capability. I think we are also agreed that it is important to take every opportunity to try and persuade the Iranians to reconsider what is actually in their own security interest. We are in the process of doing that.

Despite Gates’ proclamations that Israel is willing to wait and let diplomacy work, the messages coming out of the country are far more mixed - and that willingness to give diplomacy a chance appears to be tempered by an extremely small amount of patience. And perhaps rightly so. Gates has sought to reassure the Israelis by stating that the diplomatic outreach is not “open-ended” and that the U.S. is mindful that Iran might just “run out the clock” - but to many in the country, Gates’ promises may ring hollow.

It is entirely possible that deep-seeded Israeli skepticism and doubt about the U.S. approach with Iran exists because of the current nuclear crisis involving North Korea. Color this with the genuine Israeli belief that Iran poses a serious threat to their existence (bolstered of course by Ahmadinejad’s statements). The end result is this: in the eyes of many within Israel, the U.S. has demonstrated an inability to deal with nuclear proliferation. Words, sanctions, and diplomatic endeavors have all proven incapable of defusing the N. Korean nuclear crisis - and North Korea possesses nowhere near the influence or capabilities of Iran. Furthermore, they recognize a potential reluctance of the U.S. government to deal harshly with Iran after the past six years in Iraq. On account of these factors, Israel feels the need to maintain an incredibly hardline stance on the Iran issue - in part because they do feel threatened, in part because of a desire to push the U.S. towards a firmer position, and in part because of a potential belief that the Iran situation could end up in the same position as the North Korean situation - possessing a nuclear capability - a position that is completely unacceptable for the Israelis.