The next year: Nuclear crunch time

This is the usual shortened version (850 words) of my weekend column (with Aluf Benn in Tel Aviv). For the full version (2300 words) search the print edition.

The number 1 threat

The effort to prevent Iran from joining the prestigious club of nuclear powers will top Israel's strategic and diplomatic agenda during the new year. There is no national or international issue that is more important and the decisions that will be made by U.S. President George W. Bush will shape the regional balance of power for many years to come. The talks Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is conducting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will be a
sideshow, no more than a warm-up act, even if they result in agreements, understandings and spectacular ceremonies.

The Iranian atom has been engaging Israel's defense and strategic
establishment for nearly 15 years but only during the past year in the wake of the Israel Defense Forces' failure to deal with either Hezbollah, the decrease in Palestinian suicide terror or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of destruction that the threat has begun to sink into public consciousness and to feature in public opinion polls as the number 1 threat to Israel. So far, this fear has not found expression in Israel's overt behavior: Real estate prices are soaring and there is no word of a wave of emigration.

The government is dealing with the Iranian issue behind closed doors and is saying little, on the grounds that this is "an international and not an Israeli problem." In fact, there is not even a real political debate concerning Iran. Even the extreme left is not proposing that Israel hold a dialogue with a bitter foe such as Ahmadinejad and the right is avoiding public exhortations to launch an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations. Everyone is united in calling for an increase in international pressure on Tehran pressure that has thus far resulted in "signs of success," which are in actual fact quite far from success.

The moment of truth

It is doubtful the decision will wait for the next President. The public silence and the slow progress of Iran's nuclear engineers have allowed the frequent postponement of the decision. However,
this coming year, Bush's last in the White House (and in fact up to January 2009), the sitting on the fence will come to an end.

Even though it often seems like the American president is no more than a lame duck and Bush has been looking like that for some time now, the American presidency has a long tradition of making crucial decisions in an election year. This is true both with regard to matters that concern the U.S. and when it comes to decisions that concern Israel, and it affects presidents running for re-election, like Harry Truman, who recognized Israel, as well as presidents who are ending their term in office, like Lyndon B. Johnson, who approved the sale of Phantom jets to Israel, and Ronald Reagan, who entered into a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The current president, too, sent the famous letter to former prime minister Ariel Sharon in his previous election year, 2004. But the envelope Bush will consider sending to Iran is heavier and its postage
is more costly.

Ever since the cease-fire in Lebanon, the regional arena has been preparing for a confrontation between the United States and Iran that will determine which of the two will be the leading power in the region. As has been the case before every major war in history, this time, too, the two sides are forming alliances. The Iranians with Syria, Hezbollah and "Hamastan" in the Gaza Strip, and more loosely with Russia; the Americans with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates, Fatah in the West Bank and Israel. These alliances are manifested in the massive supply of arms and military aid, in increasing operational coordination between Iran and its partners and, from another angle, in an attempt to revive the peace process between Israel and the Arabs.

War in not inevitable

The gathering forces themselves testify that a war is not inevitable. It could in fact lead to an increase in deterrence and give rise to a "cold war" in the Middle East that would manifest itself in a struggle for spheres of influence and wars by proxy, like the Second Lebanon War or Hamas' takeover of Gaza. Bush will have to decide whether to throw his waning power into a final fight against Iran or to procrastinate in barren diplomatic talks and pass the buck to his successor.

The risks of an attack on Iran are tremendous. Iran is strong enough to respond and to cause harm around the world. It is doubtful that a new president would want to take upon himself the risk of a new war in the Middle East. This is why, if Bush blinks and refrains from taking action, Iran will be able to luxuriate in its new status as the world's 10th nuclear power. Tenth but certainly not last. Assessments have already been written in Washington predicting that many states will follow in Iran's footsteps: Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. The nuclear proliferation regime will collapse in the Middle East of all places,
where the ties between states and dubious organizations can make Washington's ultimate nightmare scenario come true: the atom in the service of terror.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

Updated
The Israel Factor: Ranking Fred Thompson's views on Iran and the Palestinians

What To Read: The Nazi roots of the 9/11 attack

Previous blog: Israel and Syria: Smoke on the horizon

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