Cordesman/Wilner, Iran & The Gulf Military Balance
AHC 6/3/12
131
efforts to push the US and the 5+1 group (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) into taking a harder line with Iran, pushing Iran to halt its efforts, or push the US towards a focus on military options. These uncertainties include Israel perceptions of the extent to which an Israeli strike on Iran would force the US to deal with the military aftermath or act as a trigger force option. They include Israeli assessments of the cost Israel would have to pay in terms of reactions from the U.S. and other states, and they include Israeli perceptions of how much damage Iran might be able to inflict using Hezbollah, Hamas, and other proxies and asymmetric means to attack Israel. It is clear from Israeli media and think tank publications that Israelis recognize these issues, but it is not clear how Israel’s leaders and military planners perceive them. The US has made it repeatedly clear in recent years that it is not giving Israel any kind of “green light” in conducting an attack on Iran. Both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have given Israel this message, and Secretary Panetta seems to have repeated it since he replaced Secretary Gates. Key US military leaders like Admiral Mike Mullen and General David Petraeus have made it clear in public statements that they oppose any near-term Israeli strike on Iran, and see such options as deeply destabilizing at a time that the US is still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to dealing with a broader struggle against Islamic extremism.45 General Martine Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, made similar points in an interview in the National Journal after a visit to Israel in January 2012,46 "We have to acknowledge that they (the Israeli) ... see that threat differently than we do. It's existential to them… My intervention with them was not to try to persuade them to my thinking or allow them to persuade me to theirs, but rather to acknowledge the complexity and commit to seeking creative solutions, not simple solutions…We are determined to prevent them (Iran) from acquiring that weapon, but that doesn't mean dropping bombs necessarily," he said. "I personally believe that we should be in the business of deterring as the first priority. I do think the path we're on—the economic sanctions and the diplomatic pressure—does seem to me to be having an effect…I just think that it's premature to be deciding that the economic and diplomatic approach is inadequate…A conflict with Iran would be really destabilizing, and I'm not just talking from the security perspective. It would be economically destabilizing.
The Ongoing Policy Debate Within Israel Regarding a Preemptive Strike on Iran There have been many reports that Israel is planning a preventive or preemptive strike on Iran, including leaks of official reports. Material released by Wikileaks indicates, for example, that as of 2005, 47
“'Military strike won't stop Iran's nuclear program',” Haaretz, February http://www.haaretz.com/news/military-strike-won-t-stop-iran-s-nuclear-program-1.266113 45
22,
2010.
46
Yitzhak, Benhorin, Dempsey: US, Israel view Iran threat very differently; US army chief says Washington determined to prevent nuclear Iran, 'but that doesn't mean dropping bombs necessarily' YNet, January 27, 2012,, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4181550,00.html 47
Yossi Melman, “2005 report says senior defense officials did not believe an attack similar to Israel's assault on Iraq's Osirak reactor was possible,” 03:12 10.04.11, http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-wikileaksexclusive-israel-ruled-out-military-option-on-iran-years-ago-1.355024
131