Benjamin Netanyahu says, or at least is quoted as saying, that he warned of the danger from Iran forty years ago in a book he wrote on terrorism.
I leaf through this book, "Terrorism: How the West Can Win," a collection of articles edited by Netanyahu. A pointed warning of Iran’s nuclear aspirations does appear in it, not penned by him, but by a prominent Democratic senator of those days, Alan Cranston from California, whom Netanyahu got to know during his service as deputy chief of mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. The name of the chapter is "The Nuclear Terrorist State."
The book, for which Netanyahu wrote an introduction and a conclusion, was a who’s who of American neo-conservatism. Netanyahu’s address book was indeed very impressive. He had just been appointed ambassador to the United Nations, and was a darling of the Reaganite right, a chapter of his life that his excellent biographies later tended to omit. I think that in the circles of the neo-cons he came of age, and developed his view of the world.
The neo-conservatives wanted to recreate the world in the image of America. Their influence on US conduct in the world for nearly forty years was decisive. It is doubtful whether there was ever so ideological a period in the history of US foreign policy. All that didn’t exactly end, but it did get irretrievably stuck on the banks of the Tigris, when the war against Saddam Hussein tested, and broke, America’s belief in its ability to change political cultures at the point of a bayonet.
With the wisdom of hindsight, it is so obvious that that effort was doomed to failure. But at the time, it was not obvious. George W. Bush was tempted into embarking on a war that he was told would be short and cheap. It began at the end of March 2003. The tanks rolled towards Baghdad at breathtaking speed. The most glorious Muslim Arab capital of all time fell into the hands of "the crusader army" of the US (as the Muslims called it) almost casually.
Bush, who had served as a pilot in the US National Guard, donned a tight Air Force uniform, put on a helmet, and was flown in a Lockheed Viking to the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, the USS Abraham Lincoln, there to declare "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed ... because the regime is no more." A huge banner, which the White House came bitterly to regret, announced: "Mission Accomplished."
Between Khorramshahr and Beirut
That vainglorious war was a huge disaster. It began the decline of the US on the international stage, and it exposed the Middle East to accelerated Iranian expansion. It made possible the territorial corridor between Teheran and Beirut.
The vision at the basis of that corridor was born in 1982. There were two almost simultaneous events in that year. In May, the Iranian army was victorious in the Second Battle of Khorramshahr, and drove the Iraqis from Iranian territory, a year and eight months after they had invaded. From then on, Saddam Hussein switched to desperate defense.
A little less than a month later, Israel invaded Lebanon, chasing the strategic illusion of changing the face of the Middle East with a single blow. On the road to Beirut, Ariel Sharon founded Hezbollah.
What’s interesting is that Israel didn’t understand the historical importance of this coincidence. At that time, Israeli strategic thinking was still ruled by the assumption that Iran could be a de facto ally, even if not de jure, against Arab nationalism.
That nationalism of course included the PLO and the radical Palestinian factions. In the struggle against the nationalist elements, it was permissible to encourage, in one way or another, the appearance of Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel lent a hand in the criminal conspiracy known as "Iran-Contras," selling arms to Iran and flirting behind the scenes with "the Iranian moderates."
A shrug of the shoulders
It’s hard to believe that it took Israel so long to understand fully the danger presented by the Islamic Republic. The failed mindset of those days persisted and took new forms, such as excessive stress on the nuclear threat. It made it easy for the outside world to treat Iran’s plan for destroying Israel, regardless of uranium enrichment, derisively.
Instead of going back to complain to the UN Security Council, instead of dragging Iran before the International Court of Justice in the Hague and accusing it of plans for genocide, the prime minister presented a cardboard model of a nuclear bomb. The result was that every "Death to Israel" and every "Uproot the Zionist cancer" was greeted with a shrug of the shoulders, as though to say "Boys will be boys."
That shrug of the shoulders made life easier for the advocates of dubious nuclear agreements. Just remove the fuse, and everything will be fine, in the spirit of Barack Obama’s outrageous advice to Saudi Arabia "to learn to share the neighborhood" with Iran. Obama was prepared to forego sanctions in return for an Iranian undertaking not to enrich uranium, the validity of which would by now have expired had Trump not withdrawn from it anyway.
Will this war, the opening blow of which stopped the world in its tracks, bring Iran to a negotiating table from which the demand that it should quit its genocidal plots will be entirely absent?
The call to end the war with diplomacy bypasses Israel. Iran will negotiate with the US, or with Europe. Israel will remain outside the loop. This is such a natural formula that no-one even bothers mentioning it; even Israel doesn’t try to make the world see the absurdity of ending a war without the participation of one of the combatants.
In the skies of Teheran and Isfahan, Israel has restored its deterrent capability, but it is liable to be left without the fruits of victory.
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on June 19, 2025.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2025.