|
|
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 25, 2008 / 19 Adar I 5768 Put It Back on the Table By Jonathan Tobin
Willingness to deal with renewed Iran threat needs to be campaign issue
Though not exactly eclipsing the Iraq war, Iran's nuclear program was
the red-hot focus of attention, with speculation rising as to what, if
anything, the United States was prepared to do about the prospect of a
radical Islamist theocracy, whose main foreign-policy goal has been to
foment terrorism in the Middle East, gaining the ability to obliterate
its enemies.
Then, in early December, it all went away.
The release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran seemingly put
an end to the discussion. By leading with its claim that the Iranians
had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program in 2003, the top American
spies neatly spiked any chance that an international coalition could be
formed to impose a tough sanctions regime on Tehran.
'IRAN'S GREATEST VICTORY'
No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bragged the NIE was
"Iran's greatest victory in the last 100 years."
But there was one little problem with the NIE. It was wrong.
Critics of the document (in Israel, Europe and here) pointed out that a
close reading of the text showed that, despite the opening language
about a decision supposedly taken in 2003 on weapons design, the rest
of the nuclear program was still going full-steam ahead. With their
ongoing progress toward nuclear material capability, it wouldn't take
much to take the last step toward a weapon.
If that wasn't reason enough to worry about the NIE's conclusion, then
surely, Iran's brazen announcement earlier this month that it had begun
to deploy a new generation of machinery to produce nuclear fuel should
have set off alarms.
So it was hardly surprising that in testimony before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mike McConnell, the director of national
intelligence, declared that maybe his agency's much heralded release
wasn't right, after all. Indeed, McConnell acknowledged to the
committee that the NIE's focus on weapons design was a mistake since he
admitted it "was probably the least significant part of the program."
He also confessed that Iran's uranium enrichment shows that the
potential for a nuclear threat is still very real.
As for the report that had singlehandedly taken a significant
foreign-policy issue off the national agenda, McConnell fessed up that
"in retrospect, I would do some things differently."
No kidding.
It isn't necessarily too late to undo the damage. But though the
release of the NIE led the news everywhere in early December,
McConnell's mea culpa barely registered on the media Richter scale.
Industrious readers of The New York Times had to find it on Page 10 of
the Feb. 8 paper, after several stories trumpeting the erroneous
findings had been on the front page. A search of The Philadelphia
Inquirer's Web site finds no mention at all about McConnell's
backtracking.
That's unfortunate because it ought to be playing a part in the story
that does have the media riveted: the presidential race.
For all of the coverage devoted to the grudge match between Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama while John McCain awaits the winner, this
political season has been more about biography and tone-setting than
getting down to brass tacks about issues. But at some point, we are
going to have to get beyond the slogans and start talking about the
world the winner will face in January 2009.
Attempting to figure out what exactly each would do when they find
themselves facing - as each inevitably will some time in the next four
years - an Iran on the verge of nuclear capability isn't easy.
All three say the right things about not tolerating Iranian nukes. All
say they will support Israel, the most obvious target of Tehran's
arsenal since its leaders have already marked it for annihilation.
Beyond that, some tactical differences have emerged.
Obama blasted Clinton for supporting a Bush-supported vote to declare
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (whose most prominent member Imad
Mughniyeh met a well-deserved death in Damascus last week) a terrorist
organization, even though he, and everyone else in the world knows
that's exactly what it is.
Obama has also differed from Clinton on his willingness to meet with
the Iranians, and any other rogue regime, rather than declare it
off-limits, as Bush has done. But Obama has promised that his goal
would still be to stop Iran and protect Israel.
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
On this score, Obama has taken a hit with former Carter administration
national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as former
Clinton administration staffer Robert Malley. Neither are particularly
friendly to Israel's interests, though Malley, who was an apologist for
Yasser Arafat and an advocate for dealing with Hamas, has astonishingly
drawn support from a number of former colleagues who vouch for his
"pro-Israel" credentials.
With McCain, there is a clear difference since he says "the
transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic
extremists," and vows to wage war on them in Iraq and anywhere else. As
for Tehran's nukes, he has joked that his policy is to "bomb, bomb,
bomb Iran" (sung to the tune of the Beach Boys classic hit "Barbara
Ann").
Whether he would actually do so is a matter of speculation, especially
given the fact that many of the foreign-policy advisers linked to his
campaign, such as Brent Scowcroft, are from the "realist" school that
shrinks from that sort of assertiveness.
What all this leaves us with is a frustrating lack of information on
what is, in all likelihood, the most important decision that the next
president will take.
That makes it all the more important that the press and the public
begin to press the candidates for specifics about their ideas on this
subject. Given the stakes involved, we can't wait until next year to
find out more about their thinking. The latest revelations about the
NIE make it imperative that the time to learn about their Iran policies
is before November.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
Let him know what you think by clicking here.
© 2007, Jonathan Tobin
| ||||||||||
