That this speech comes the day after Yom Kippur, at the end of Holy Week, is more a factor of the UN's scheduling than anything else. But, having now heard the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, I understand why this speech had to be made.
Mr. Netanyahu just laid out a convincing case for not allowing Iran to successfully construct nuclear devices. He reminded us that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism around the globe for many years, and many of these terrorists have been suicidal fanatics. Using information from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as audio-visual aids ("This is a bomb. This is a fuse."), Bebe used a marker to literally draw a red line, past which Iran cannot be stopped. By quoting Bernard Lewis: "Mutual Assured Destruction isn't a deterrent, it's an encouragement" where suicidal fanatics are concerned, the PM put to rest the notion that a nuclear-capable Iran would contribute to the stability of the Middle East. Almost as an aside, he reminded us that allowing Al Qaeda access to nuclear weapons (as Iran would almost certainly be willing to provide) would not exactly "usher in an era of world peace", ether.
Mr. Netanyahu did a brilliant job of comparing the current situation to that faced by John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s and today's situation. As he pointed out, "It's the failure to draw red lines that's often invited aggression", and he's correct. Kennedy drew a line, and the Soviets backed down (although it's generally accepted that we were only a few heartbeats from a global Game Over). Chamberlain's line was penciled in, and while he did achieve "Peace in our time", that peace only held for a few months.
This wording wasn't accidental. "Red lines" have been bandied about for the last several weeks in various posts (a good summary is
here), but as
Jeffrey Goldberg points out, "The President and his aides understand why Netanyahu would seek red lines. They would like to keep their red lines hidden from the Iranians (the smart move, obviously), but it is not "outrageous," in the course of Netanyahu's conversations with President Obama, for him to want to know precisely what might spark the U.S. into action? Certainly the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have also asked the same question of the President."
Put yourself in Bebe's shoes: You are the democratically elected leader of the ONLY democracy in the region worthy of the name. Your country is small, with a relatively small population, compared to your neighbors. Some of those neighbors are openly hostile to you. You have a large population of people in your country who want it to be their country, instead, and are willing to blow themselves up (at least some of them are, hopefully most of the rest have more sense than that) to achieve it. Iran is a large country, with a large population, advanced weapons and an active nuclear program…and a leader who regularly states that he has wet dreams about wiping your country and your people off the map. The IAEA believes that, by late spring/early summer 2013, this man will have The Bomb. Your country has had The Bomb for several decades (but hasn't used it, because you don't want to start a big mess). Iran's leader believes in the 13
th Imam, who can only appear after a massive conflagration in the region. Your main ally, the United States, is led by a suspected Muslim with a proven record of supporting radical Islamic revolutions against world leaders that were his country's allies. That leader has effectively
just announced to you (and the world at large) "you're on your own, sucka".
What would YOU do?
So, yes, I was wrong about the dates when I thought an Israeli strike on Iran would occur. After having heard Mr. Netanyahu's speech, now I understand just why I was wrong. What I heard today was a man laying out the case for a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear production infrastructure, inhibiting their nuclear program to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work (although, he did point out that nearly a decade of diplomacy hasn't done squat thus far, and sanctions haven't done much better against the nuclear program itself). I also heard a clear deadline laid out: by late spring or early summer of next year, by which time Iran will have crossed that red line into the zone where they cannot be stopped from building The Bomb.
Is such a strike inevitable? No. Any number of things could change the situation, literally overnight, and with little or no warning. That such a strike never happens is something I pray for daily. However, should events continue on their current trajectory, such a strike is far more likely than not, and Bebe's not dumb enough to not realize what
will probably happen after that.
I'm not going to predict a date for it. Nobody'd believe it, anyway; not even me.
