The current disagreements between the United States and Israel
over how best to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons bring
to mind an old Jewish joke:
In a small town in 19th century Russia, two men
brought their complaints to the local Rabbi. After listening to the
first man, the Rabbi said, “You are right.” After listening to the
second man, the Rabbi said, “You are right.”
When both men had left, the Rabbi’s wife, who had been
listening impatiently in the next room, approached her husband.
“What kind of judge are you?” she asked. “They both can’t be
right.”
After pondering his wife’s words, the Rabbi replied, “You
know something — you’re also right.”
America is certainly right in cautioning Israel against
striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, warning that such a strike
would have unpredictable consequences that could destabilize the
entire Middle East. But Israel is also right in saying that however
destabilizing such a strike might be, a nuclear-armed Iran would be
even more destabilizing.
Similarly, America is right to point out that the
international community (i.e. the U.S. and Western Europe) is now
united as never before against Iran, and that the current round of
sanctions should be given a chance to work. But Israel is also
right in saying that by the time the sanctions take effect, Iran’s
progress toward acquiring nuclear weapons may well be
irreversible.
How can this clash of rights be resolved?
I think the only way out is a grand compromise, whereby
Israel pledges not to strike Iran for an
agreed-upon period of time and allow the
sanctions to do their work, and America pledges to join Israel in a
military strike against Iran if, after the
agreed-upon period, the sanctions fail to achieve their
purpose.
Several senior American officials, including National
Security Adviser Tom Donilon, and chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, have recently visited Israel, and while
their discussions are a closely-held secret (the Israeli press is
full of rumors that are not to be taken seriously), I suspect that
they and their Israeli counterparts were hammering out the details
of such a compromise.
Obviously, neither the United States nor Israel will be
entirely happy with whatever deal is reached, but at least America
will gain time to let the sanctions work (and who knows? — perhaps
the combined impact of devastating sanctions and the overthrow of
the pro-Tehran Assad regime in Syria will provoke regime-change in
Iran), while Israel will gain the assurance that if it does
ultimately decide to strike Iran, it won’t be alone.
Hopefully, a draft agreement will be ready by March 5,
when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is due to arrive in
Washington. He and President Obama will have to overcome a huge
gulf of mistrust and mutual contempt to arrive at an understanding
(and it certainly did not help matters when the Obama
administration recently announced its intention to lobby Congress
to restore UNESCO’s funding, despite that organization’s decision
to admit “Palestine” as a member-state), but as the great Dr.
Johnson observed, “The prospect of being hanged concentrates the
mind wonderfully.” For Obama no less than Netanyahu, a
nuclear-armed Iran would amount to a political hanging.
