Israel will not let Europeans off the hook

My weekend print edition column was all about Iran. Again, it is the joint venture with Aluf Benn (writing from Tel Aviv) and me (Washington). You can read it in full here. Or just read this part of it:

On the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein sent an urgent summons to the then-Saudi ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar, to come to a meeting in Iraq. This was not long after Saddam had threatened to burn half of Israel with chemical weapons, a threat that elicited sharp reactions around the world. The Iraqi ruler had a message to transmit. We were misunderstood, Saddam said to Bandar. I simply suspected Israel was about to attack me. If I am promised there is no plan for such an attack, I'll calm down immediately.

Bandar returned to Washington, and four days after his meeting with Saddam he met with then-president George H.W. Bush. The White House addressed Israel and received a commitment: If there is no Iraqi attack, we will not attack. The message was transmitted through Bandar to Saddam. A short while later Iraq invaded Kuwait, leaving its western border almost wide open - knowing it was not exposed to an Israeli attack. Bandar realized Saddam had tricked him. And Bush too did not spare him a sting: Is this what your promises are worth?

Through this story one can understand why Israel refuses to make similar promises. Over the past two years, in talks with the Europeans, the Iranians have demanded that the U.S. commit to not staging a military attack, as a precondition to negotiations. The administration has not agreed. In any case, it is doubtful it can make such a commitment in Israel's name. Nevertheless, Israel is refraining from public threats against Iran, and for a good reason: the fear that the problem will be perceived as a local conflict between two crazy Middle Eastern countries, and not as an international issue that necessitates international help.

"There is no possibility, reason or way Israel would lead such a move," asserted Dichter.

This Tuesday it emerged that the Europeans are prepared to move toward sanctions, after having failed in another attempt to reach an understanding with the Iranians. However, the prevailing assessment in Jerusalem is that the Europeans, who are always hesitant about the use of force, would be glad if Israel were to take the portfolio on itself and bomb the nuclear installations in Iran. In London, Paris and Brussels they would chock up a three-fold gain: The nuclear threat would be lifted, or at least postponed for a number of years; the Europeans would not have dirtied their hands and quarreled with the Iranians; and they could condemn the "aggressive and irresponsible Israel," like when it bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981.

Olmert, like Sharon before him, is not prepared to give the Europeans this pleasure, and is sticking to casting responsibility on "the international community." As a result, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel must devote much more time to Iran. Another result is that Israel has ceased its efforts at psychological warfare aimed at arousing Western public opinion and governments to action via implied threats of an Israeli attack.

More on these issues on Rosner's Domain:

Emanuele Ottolenghi on the Muslims and Europe.

The Iran Time Saver: Features, opinion, interviews, studies.