Published: February 14
Courtesy of "The Washington Post"
TWO MONTHS ago... Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spelled out publicly his objections to an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Now Mr. Panetta has indirectly caused a similar stir: After a conversation with Mr. Panetta this month, The Post’s David Ignatius reported that the Pentagon chief “believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.”
What could explain this public undercutting of one of America’s closest allies? The unfortunate answer seems to be a lack of strategic agreement or basic trust between the Obama administration and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
A senior U.S. intelligence official recently said that Israel has grown reticent about discussing a possible attack on Iran and had declined to offer an assurance that it would consult Washington before acting.
That leaves the administration facing the possibility that it will be presented with an Israeli-Iranian conflict that could expand to encompass U.S. forces and allies in the Persian Gulf and trigger unforeseeable consequences in the larger Middle East.
We continue to believe that military action against Iran, by Israel or the United States, is not yet necessary or wise.
U.S. and Israeli officials share an assessment that, though Iran is building up nuclear capability, it has not taken decisive steps toward building a bomb.
In the meantime, the pressures on its leadership — from sanctions, sabotage, the disarray of allies such as Syria and domestic discontent — are growing. The best strategy for now is to fan those flames, which could cause the regime to retreat or even to fall.
... the Obama administration suggests that only a clear Iranian attempt to produce a nuclear weapon would justify military intervention...
No comments:
Post a Comment