Israel at War: Inside the Nuclear Showdown With Iran

by Joel C. Rosenberg

  Suddenly, Washington, foreign capitals, and the international media were abuzz with rumors of impending war between Israel and Iran within just a few weeks. Senior U.S. and Israeli officials were speaking with rare candor about the growing possibility of Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The handwriting had been on the wall for some time, but I had never heard such high-ranking officials speaking on the record in terms of specific time frames for war.90

  That same day, February 2, Barak delivered a major speech at a security conference in Israel. In it, he publicly acknowledged the fear that Iran was rapidly approaching the “zone of immunity.”

  “Today, as opposed to the past, the world has no doubt that the Iranian military nuclear program is steadily approaching maturity and is about to enter the zone of immunity, after which the Iranian regime will be able to complete the program without effective interruption and at a time it finds convenient,” Barak explained. “The dividing line may pass not where the Iranians decide to break out of the non-proliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place where the dispersal, protection, and survivability efforts will cross a point that would make a physical strike impractical.”91

  How soon would Iran enter this “zone of immunity”? Ehud Barak did not say. But given Defense Secretary Panetta’s remarks, it seemed plausible that Israel would hit Iran in the spring.

  Speaking to reporters and U.S. airmen at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany on Friday, February 3, Secretary Panetta refused to back away from the Post report, thus effectively confirming the story.92 The question, of course, was: Why did Panetta publicly describe the window the Israelis were considering for a preemptive strike? Was it to help prepare the American public and the world for the inevitable? Or was Panetta undermining the Israelis by alerting the Iranians to their plans?

  The following month, on March 4, President Obama addressed thousands of pro-Israel activists at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In his speech, the president warned, “There is too much loose talk of war. . . . For the sake of Israel’s security, America’s security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster.” He defended himself against mounting criticism that he was not doing enough to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons or being a strong and faithful enough friend of the Jewish State. He said he would keep the military option on the table and stated emphatically that his administration was not pursuing a policy of “containment” (i.e., letting Iran get the Bomb but then making sure they would not use it). But the president said he believed so much talk of possible war was benefiting Iran, in part by driving up oil prices, which helps fund the regime in Tehran. What’s more, Obama made it crystal clear—yet again—that he did not want Israel to launch a preemptive, unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.93

  For someone living in a cave and just stepping out to attend the AIPAC speech or watch it on television, the president’s words might have sounded tough and convincing. The problem was, it did not sound that way to Netanyahu, Barak, or their inner circle. Though the Israelis continued to speak respectfully of the president in public, in private they felt the Obama administration had been dragging its heels for years and still refused to get serious about stopping Iran.

  This was not just perception. The Israelis could point to a troubling set of facts.

  In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed the U.S. would impose “crippling” economic sanctions on Iran if nuclear negotiations failed.94

  In 2010, however, the administration reversed course and said the U.S. would not impose “crippling” sanctions on Iran, even though talks were yielding no positive results but rather giving Iran more time to defy the international community and move toward the Bomb.95

  In late 2011, the Obama administration resisted stringent sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and then worked to water down a new sanctions bill in Congress.96

  In December 2011, the Senate passed a bill 100-0 imposing tough new sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank in an attempt to cripple Iranian oil sales and force the regime to negotiate a deal on its nuclear program. Incredibly, the Obama administration initially opposed the bill.97

  In the end, the Obama White House finally relented and supported the sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank, but only after France and Britain led the way.98

  Netanyahu Goes Public

  On the morning of Monday, March 5, 2012, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu met privately in the Oval Office for over an hour, followed by a private lunch with top advisors in the State Dining Room. In a gesture aimed at warming the strained relationship between the two leaders, Netanyahu gave the president a decorated scroll containing the biblical book of Esther. He also discussed with Mr. Obama the significance of the story, explaining that some twenty-five hundred years ago, a Persian tyrant had threatened to annihilate the Jewish people. In response, Queen Esther, at the urging of her Jewish cousin, prayed and fasted for the salvation of the Jews and then pleaded with King Ahasuerus for the protection of her people.

  “Then, too, they wanted to wipe us out,” Netanyahu told Obama.99

  For Netanyahu, who has never been a religious person, it was an unexpected gift at an unexpected time. It was also a gift with a critically important meaning, one that Netanyahu reinforced in his private meeting with the president. He thanked Mr. Obama for stating in his AIPAC speech that Israel has “the sovereign right to make its own decisions.” Israeli officials privately interpreted the president’s comments to mean the U.S. would not interfere in an Israeli strike if there was no other option left. Then, sitting next to the president, the prime minister personally reiterated that Israel must have the ability to defend itself against an existential threat. “My supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate,” he said.100

  What is not clear is whether the prime minister explained the ending of the biblical story. Yes, Esther did her part, praying, fasting, and intervening before the Persian king on behalf of the Jewish people. And yes, the God of Israel heard those prayers and answered powerfully. He softened the Persian king’s heart, caused the evil official known as Haman to be executed, and miraculously changed the dynamic in favor of the Jews. Still, it must be remembered that in the end the Jewish people did have to fight against the Persian forces who were hell-bent on their destruction. With the Lord’s help, the Jews miraculously prevailed.

  “The king granted the Jews who were in each and every city the right to assemble and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill and to annihilate the entire army of any people or province which might attack them,” the Bible tells us. “The Jews assembled in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm; and no one could stand before them, for the dread of them had fallen on all the peoples” (Esther 8:11; 9:2).

  That night, Netanyahu himself addressed the AIPAC conference. He made it clear to Israel’s Jewish and Christian supporters—including hundreds of congressmen, senators, and foreign ambassadors—that the time to act decisively was running out. “For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the entire world,” the prime minister told the thousands of supporters of Israel gathered in the Washington, D.C. convention center.101 “For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy, but unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear program continues to march forward. Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue. We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer. As prime minister of Israel, I will never let my peo
ple live in the shadow of annihilation. . . .

  “Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb,” Netanyahu continued. “They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already under way, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke an even more vindictive response by Iran. I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the United States War Department. . . . The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you. ‘Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere . . . and in any case, it would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources. . . .’ And, my friends, here’s the most remarkable sentence of all, and I quote: ‘Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.’

  “Think about that—‘even more vindictive action’—than the Holocaust. My friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday. But here’s my point: the Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. And the purpose of the Jewish State is to defend Jewish lives and to secure the Jewish future. Never again will we not be masters of the fate of our very survival. Never again. That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

  Then Netanyahu shared with the audience the story he had shared with the president: the biblical story of Jewish Queen Esther. “This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history,” he explained. “In synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the Festival of Purim. We will read how some twenty-five hundred years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. And we will read how that plot was foiled by one courageous woman—Esther. In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. In this generation, we are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish State capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself. So as I leave you tonight, I thank you for your friendship. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish State.”

  At the time, I wrote on my blog, “All the signs to me look like Israel is going to war with Iran, and soon. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu strikes me as a man who has made his peace with the task ahead of him, a man who now believes his nation is capable of winning a war with Iran and has made all of the preparations necessary to strike if need be. I’m not saying he’s made a final decision. But he’s talking like a leader ready to make that final decision in the not-too-distant future. Indeed, I believe this trip to Washington is part of Netanyahu’s process of making a final assessment of whether the Obama administration will truly have Israel’s back, as the president promises, or whether Israel will be completely isolated. And while the White House is clearly pressuring Israel not to strike, Congress seems ready to support Israel fully.”102

  Final Preparations?

  With millions of people around the world praying for peace, myself included, I was relieved when war did not break out that spring. But even as we prayed for peace, it seemed Israel was making final preparations for war. As spring turned to summer, Israeli officials accelerated the distribution of gas masks to its citizens. They tested an emergency SMS text-messaging system to alert people of incoming missiles. They also ran some of the largest and most dramatic military exercises and civil defense drills in the history of the country, all seemingly in an effort to prepare people for war.

  Then, on August 1, an article in the New York Times sent a jolt of electricity through the foreign policy community in Washington, Europe, and the Middle East. In a story focusing mostly on the Obama administration’s efforts to persuade Netanyahu not to launch a preemptive strike, the Times quoted Efraim Halevy, the former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, as saying, “If I were an Iranian, I would be very fearful of the next twelve weeks.”103

  Halevy was not known for being an advocate for a strike, certainly not one so soon. But his instincts and experience suggested the war would start before the American elections on November 6. That single line caught the attention of many world leaders and intelligence analysts and caused them to wonder if war was coming sooner than they had expected.

  A week later, on August 11, an Israeli newspaper published a story based on a two-and-a-half-hour discussion with an unnamed but very high-ranking Israeli leader (widely believed in Israel and in Washington to be Ehud Barak) who suggested the zero hour for an Israeli attack was fast approaching. “If Israel forgoes the chance to act and it becomes clear that it no longer has the power to act, the likelihood of an American action will decrease,” the high-ranking Israeli official said. “So we cannot wait a year to find out who was right: the one who said that the likelihood of an American action is high or the one who said the likelihood of an American action is low.”104 Here, apparently, was Israel’s defense minister making a vigorous case for Israeli preemptive action—and for taking such action in less than one year. Again, the clock seemed to be speeding up.

  The following day, Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon said it was time for the international community to admit the nuclear talks with Iran had failed. After all, three fresh rounds of direct negotiations with Iran by the “P5+1 Group”105 in Istanbul, Baghdad, and Moscow had yielded absolutely no progress toward persuading Iran to stop illegally enriching uranium. “Asked how long the Iranians should be given to cease all nuclear activity,” reported the New York Times, “Mr. Ayalon said ‘weeks, and not more than that.’”106 Once again, a high-ranking Israeli official was indicating that the time frame for action was narrowing dramatically.

  Then came the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report, a sobering document that was released on August 30, 2012. The report revealed that Iran had doubled its uranium enrichment capacity at its most secure, hardened underground nuclear facility at Fordow, near the religious city of Qom—this in spite of all the economic sanctions that had been imposed upon Iran, including strong new sanctions by Europe imposed on July 1. What’s more, the report indicated that Iran had enriched enough uranium to between 5 percent purity and 20 percent purity that could be quickly further enriched to 90 percent weapons-grade purity to produce between seven and ten nuclear warheads. The IAEA report also noted ominously, “The Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”107

  The IAEA report—most certainly given to Israeli officials before its public release and based on intelligence that was, in part, developed by American and Israeli agencies—provided fresh details validating fears held by Netanyahu, Barak, and their closest advisors. International diplomatic negotiations with Iran were clearly going nowhere. Strong new international sanctions were showing real signs of worsening Iran’s economy. But the sanctions were having no impact. Iran’s leaders were not being dissuaded from pursuing the Bomb. New evidence revealed that Iran was accelerating its efforts to build warheads and to learn how to attach those warheads to ballistic missiles. And most concerning of all, Netanyahu and his team could see that Iran was about to hide and protect its nuclear program in hardened underground facilities like the one at Fordow—facilities that Israeli fighter jets, conventional bombs, and conventional missiles would not be able to easily neutralize.

  Just days later, on September 4, Netanyahu met for ten hours in Jerusalem with his fourteen-member Security Cabinet, including the defense minister, the foreign minister, and other top mili
tary and intelligence officials. They were briefed on the latest highly classified intelligence on Iran. They discussed how close Iran was to hiding its nuclear program so far underground it would be unreachable by Israeli military means. And they discussed timelines for taking action. One participant told a reporter later, “We heard detailed, disturbing, and very troubling information regarding the progress of Iran’s nuclear program.” The media reported that no vote was taken by the Security Cabinet on operational decisions, but that could be disinformation to confuse Iran.108

  In this context, a story published by the Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom on September 7 made big news: “Former Likud and Kadima member Tzachi Hanegbi said this week that he believed the fate of Israel’s conflict with Iran will be decided within the next fifty days.” The story, which immediately went viral and was discussed in Washington and in capitals around the world, quoted Hanegbi as saying, “We are entering the most fateful fifty days Israel has faced since, perhaps, the similarly fateful days prior to the Yom Kippur War.”109 The reference to the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was significant. At that time, Israeli intelligence failed disastrously, then–Prime Minister Golda Meir did not order a preemptive strike, Israel’s enemies instead struck first, and Israelis deeply feared they were about to lose their country.

  The same day as the Hanegbi quote was released, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper—arguably the most pro-Israel leader on the planet today—ordered the Canadian embassy in Tehran closed and all Canadian diplomats to leave Iran immediately. He also ordered the Iranian embassy in Ottawa closed and gave Iranian diplomats and staff five days to leave the country. It was a move quickly applauded by Netanyahu and an ominous signal that Israel’s closest friends were preparing for war.110