(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Michael Herzog - Most Israelis believe that Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. They also regard a nuclear-armed Iran as a mortal threat to their country's future and are highly skeptical that international sanctions and diplomacy will curtail Tehran's aims. Therefore, the debate in Israel focuses on the cost-effectiveness of a unilateral Israeli strike, as well as its timing and potential impact on U.S.-Israeli relations. Implicit in the position of Israeli decision-makers is deep skepticism regarding whether Washington will ultimately deliver on its commitment to keep Iran from going nuclear. They frequently cite the failure to curtail Pakistan and North Korea's nuclear ambitions despite U.S. commitments to do so. At the same time, Israelis are well aware of the fact that they will depend on Washington's support the day after a preemptive strike, particularly in leading the crucial international campaign to prevent Iran from reconstituting its nuclear capabilities. The intensifying public debate in Israel is, first and foremost, a testimony to the fact that the country is nearing a decision on Iran, probably in the coming weeks. If Washington wants to influence Israeli decision-making, it must reach out to its ally at the highest level both publicly and privately, presenting a clearer roadmap that seriously addresses Israel's concerns. Such a dialogue cannot wait until after the U.S. election. Brig. Gen. (ret.) Michael Herzog is a Washington Institute international fellow.
2012-08-20 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive