THE PARADOX OF ISRAEL FOREIGN POLICY-GROWING OUTREACH AND ISOLATION ON IRAN

By Josef Olmert

After the 1967 great victory in the Six Days War, Israel’s most popular musical hit song was; “The entire world is against us”. Somewhat surprising, isn’t it? On the one hand, a great victory, and with it a sense of relief, of renewed optimism and fresh hope, and then this self-flagellation of celebrating isolation. Well, not as strange as it may seem at first glance. The sense of isolation is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, the sense of ”Am Levadad Yishkon” [The people that shall dwell alone], a sense cemented by two thousand years of antisemitism, deportations from our homeland, forced conversions, massacres, and the horrific Holocaust.

Who can blame the Jews in general, and Israelis in particular, for feeling isolated. But then, the war of 1967, what preceded it, and its aftermath may have led to another impression of the relationships between Jews and the world. It is so because unlike 1956, when the Eisenhower Administration brutally forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai almost immediately after the completion of the war, in 1967, the Johnson Administration gave Israel the green light to go to perform what would be a great victory and did not force Israel out of the lands taken justifiably in a war of self-defense. Still, there was this sense that Israel was alone, maybe because of the antisemitic outburst of De Gaulle, mostly because of the criticism of Israel after its victory. The famous Israeli humorist Efrayyim Kishon summed it up so nicely and succinctly, writing ” Excuse us for winning”. Altogether, however, the reactions to 1967 were not as bad, judging mainly by the US reaction, and it was at the height of the Cold war, that the US reaction mattered so much. The US represented, at least, a sense of fairness and justice. Still, a trend was established after 1967. Israel has no natural right to fight for its survival; it has to explain it, to apologize for it. The war of 1973 and its aftermath, in fact, all of Israel’s wars and military encounters since 1967, were subjects of so much vehemence against Israel, with one exception only – America’s Gulf war of 1991, when Israel was attacked by 42 Iraqi rockets and did NOT respond. Typical Israeli reaction at that time was- The world likes weak, timid Jews. All this is NOT a discussion of the question of Jews and the world, a huge question out of the scope of this paper, but of one feature of it -What is the world reaction when Israel faces an existential threat? The pre-1967 war’s Arab build-up represented such a threat, and nowadays, the threat comes from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its nuclear program.

We have to address this question of Israel and Iran from three different perspectives. First, the seriousness of the Iranian threat. Some simple facts are required here in order to provide the answer. The program was started over 20 years ago and has continued during the terms in office of some presidents of the Islamic Republic, who were, on occasion, in dispute about certain policies, but NEVER on the attitude towards Israel, and the need for Iran to develop a military nuclear program. No president of Iran has ever deviated from the line dictated by Supreme Leader Khamene’i, according to which Israel should disappear from the face of the earth. The program has cost Iran an enormous amount of money, has swallowed a lot of resources, and led to the impoverishment of the country, yet it never stopped. The deteriorating economic conditions in Iran led to waves of violent popular unrest, but the regime has relentlessly continued in its drive towards the bomb.

The program led to the imposition of sanctions on Iran, and again the race for the bomb has never stopped. Finally, it should be emphasized that the fact that the program has lasted for so many years does not indicate its failure. It is a program that is complicated even to countries far more scientifically developed than Iran. Then there is something else that needs to be added to the list. The Islamic Republic has been engaged for years in a massive program of expanding its influence throughout the Muslim world at large, especially in the Middle East, and doing that by using and activating Shi’i Muslim minorities. The overall performance of the Islamic Republic in recent years is providing us with a reasonable and realistic picture of their regional policies, and the following is based on the combined effect of the nuclear program and the aggressive regional policies; Here is what we can conclude:

A] They are very serious about the nuclear program. They view it as an asset enabling them to keep their regional aspirations, but also as an insurance policy for maintaining the internal stability of the regime, and “something” which can enable them to maneuver in the international arena, and above all, keeps the option of destroying Israel as a viable one.

B] The nuclear program is their BEST trump card against Israel, but not the only one. Hizballah in Lebanon, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Assad regime, and even the Shi’is in Iraq and Yemen can and will be used against Israel.

C] The regime shows strong resilience in the face of domestic and external threats, and the election of a super militant new President, Ibrahim Rai’isi is yet another indication of that.

D] The regime can mitigate, though not completely, the ill effects of sanctions by having agreements with China and Russia, particularly the former.

Let us sum up about Iran-A REAL DANGER to regional stability, POTENTIAL EXISTENTIAL DANGER TO ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS and to a large extent also without it.

With that, we can turn to Israel and its policy towards Iran-its pros and cons, the rhetoric and the actions, the expectations and the actual results, and we have to examine that against the backdrop of Israel’s overall foreign policy.

Israel in 2021 is NOT an isolated country. The scope of Israel’s international relations is not less than being amazing and impressive. That said, a lot of credit should go to former P.M Netanyahu who devoted most of his 12 years in office [2009-2021] exactly for the development of Israel’s regional and international standing. Of course, the climax of all that is the widening process of normalization and peace treaties with Arab countries. The Abraham Accords and beyond them other agreements have changed the entire landscape of the Arab-Israeli conflict and turned Israel from being the odd man out of Middle East politics, the pariah state of the region, into a legitimate actor in the overall system of regional relationships. It is too premature to talk about the end of the conflict, we are far from that point, as still a majority of the members of the Arab League are formally in a state of war with Israel, but the tendency seems clear, as even among these states there are those who clandestinely are either dealing with Israel like Saudi Arabia or considering doing it like Libya. In other countries like Iraq there are public manifestations of support for the idea of establishing formal relations with Israel. Iraq, by the way, is the only Arab country among those which actively fought against Israel, which has never signed even a cease-fire agreement with Israel. All this happens while the conflict with the Palestinians continues. The current trend means that more and more Arab countries adopt the President Sadat and King Hussein formula, making peace between Israel and the two countries possible. The bilateral course of relations with Israel enables peace with her but does not mean an abandonment of commitments towards the Palestinians. In fact, these two Arab countries do play a role, though sometimes opposite, in the dealings between Israel and the Palestinians. Egypt has a vested interest in helping Israel in its struggle against Hamas in Gaza due to its own security issues on its side of the border with Gaza caused, in part, by the assistance given by Hamas to Jihadists in Sinai. With its own sizeable Palestinian population and its continued interest in and attachment to Jerusalem, Jordan plays another role, that of supporter, and on occasions, instigator of troubles between Israel and the Palestinians when there are crises concerning Jerusalem.

The Abraham Accords are the product of processes in the Arab world assisted significantly by the then Trump Administration. The Biden Administration remains committed to these agreements, but its actual support for and interest in them is still unclear. But Israel’s international outreach went far beyond the Abraham Accords. The full list is impressive, and we shall mention only some very notable examples here. Turkey, under the Islamist Erdogan, has become an enemy of Israel. The Israeli reaction was effective- A strategic alliance with Greece and Cyprus and very close relations with all the Balkan neighbors of Turkey, including mostly Muslim Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia. Perhaps it is this Israeli response that may be behind the latest hesitant and unclear overtures from Erdogan towards Israel. Very strong relations with Central European countries, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. All this time, the good relations with Germany, Italy, France, and Britain are maintained, and in the case of the latter, are fast becoming closer than ever before, under the leadership of Boris Johnson. Strong relations with South Korea, Japan, and India, and with the latter, it is becoming strategic military relations. Close relations with Australia, and also with some Central and South American countries such as Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Columbia, Uruguay, and Brazil. Also, a major breakthrough in Africa enables Israel to deal effectively with the fallacious Apartheid vilification of the Jewish state. Last but by no means least is the interesting relations with Russia and China, and we shall come back to that later in the context of Iran. And still we can talk about very close, multi-faceted relations with the US, relations less close now than before under Trump, but still ones which can be considered Israel’s most significant foreign policy asset.

Overall, the Accords and the process leading to them cannot be understood without realizing the role of Iran. The Islamic Republic is seen not only in Israel as a mortal enemy, but also in many Arab countries. However, this paper is about Israel and Iran and takes for granted the attitudes of countries such as Saudi Arabia while not discussing them here. So here is a summation of Israel’s policy towards Iran and its implications:

A] Israel rightly views the Islamic Republic of Iran as an existential threat.

B] Israel succeeded as of 2008- 9 and onwards in its campaign to arouse international concern about Iran and its nuclear program, and it was mostly done and achieved under Netanyahu with his PR campaign in the UN and elsewhere.

C] Already before 2008-9 and, on occasions afterward, Israel successfully cooperated with the US in covert activities against Iran. The Stuxnet operation is one great example of that. This cooperation was more in use under Republican presidents, not under President Obama and nowadays, President Biden.

D] The US consistently, even under Republican presidents, has not been supportive of unilateral Israeli military activity against the Iranian nuclear program, and under Biden, it seems that this is also becoming a policy of opposition to covert activities.

E] The divergent positions of Israel and the US about Iran have the potential of strategically disrupting the relations between the two countries. Under President Obama, it was an actual situation, having a lot to do with profound mistrust between the leaders Netanyahu and Obama, but also because of President Obama’s overall reservations about Israel, if not his outright hostility.

F] Israel resisted the first Iran nuclear discussions and deal but failed to propose an alternative to the US and other countries, other than the repeated vocal rhetoric of Netanyahu. That was a mistake because it was used by the proponents of the agreement as a justification for the agreement, claiming that Israel had no better alternative.

G] Israel encouraged President Trump to leave the original Iran nuclear deal. But again, it did not offer to his Administration any alternative to this deal, and IF it offered the option of a decisive American military strike against Iran, then it was either rejected or simply not taken seriously by the US.

H] Israel has started a policy of acting against Iran’s military buildup in Syria, BUT-DID IT TOO LATE, and the buildup of Iran directly there and of its allies like Hizballah continues. Yes, Israeli military sources, which I trust, do claim that a lot of this buildup was destroyed, but it is an ongoing effort, as the Iranians relentlessly continue their efforts. This is a failure of Netanyahu, similar to the failure to stem, on time, the buildup of Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. I] Israel succeeded in creating tacit but effective cooperation with Russia in Syria, which is a cooperation that still can help Israel deal with the Iran build up there, as it is also a Russian interest. This is a success starting with Netanyahu and continuing with Bennett.

ALTOGETHER-THE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA ARE IMPORTANT-BUT IN THE CASE OF IRAN, JUDGING BY PUBLIC INFORMATION, THESE TWO COUNTRIES SUPPORT IRAN IN ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM. There is so much that Israel can do about these two countries, and this is an indication, though not the only one, of the paradox which is at the root of this article-a lot of what is achieved by Israel in its relations with these two powers is important, but then IRAN is not an IMPORTANT problem for Israel-It is an EXISTENTIAL problem, and on this Russia and China are on the opposite side to that of Israel. They are there for reasons which have to do with their overall global strategic visions and the relations with the US. Israel is simply not a factor when THESE issues are at stake. There is more that Israel can do regarding the Europeans and the US, and this is where we come to what can be considered THE problem of Israel about Iran -how to transform sympathy, understanding, and promises into an effective policy whose ONLY outcome, which is desirable to Israel, is the complete abandonment by Iran of its nuclear program. As of now, Israel has failed to achieve that. A failure of policies, wrong tactics, flawed strategy, or something else?

Here is a typical Israeli dilemma, in fact, a typical JEWISH dilemma, and this is the fact, that Israel, being the center and heart of the Jewish people, the current Jewish answer to the 2000 years historic legacy of persecution and attempts of total national annihilation, is faced again with exactly the same situation which Jews have faced before having to deal with a national EXISTENTIAL threat. Yet again the Jewish state is on its own, both in realizing the gravity of the problem and in its readiness to solve it. This is where we started this piece-this is where it is all about. Political science is yet to develop a particular subsection dealing with politics based on historic legacy and memories, the politics of suspicion and mistrust, or the politics of Israel. Dealing with rhetoric like the one coming from Iran, whereby Zionists are compared to vermin, the Holocaust is denied, and the official position is that Israel should be totally eliminated takes many Israelis back to the 1930’s, and to the legacy of what could be done then and wasn’t.

Netanyahu may have overemphasized this element of the situation, but he was right in his basic attitude. He did not invent this legacy; he did not manufacture history; he used history in order to send a message. He should have done it, though by using this rhetoric so much, he neglected to use other arguments which could be helpful, and at any rate, this rhetoric did NOT ring a bell where it was supposed to do that. Here is why-NO other country in the world views the Iran challenge the way Israel does, and that can easily be explained by the fact, that the Iranians do not challenge the very existence of any other state, but there is something else here. The world does not understand the fundamental sense of insecurity and mistrust, which is in the very basis of how Israel views itself, and here it is proper to say how the JEWISH state of Israel views itself in the world. It is more than that – a lot in the world, including our friends, simply do not believe Israel when it evokes the legacy of the Holocaust; they are even cynical about that. Menachem Begin gave this aspect of Israeli feelings a very strong and impassioned description when referring to the attack on the Saddam nuclear reactor, but even the friendly Reagan Administration joined the condemnation of Israel in the UNSC.

To sum up this point-Israel IS strong, but a lot of this strength has to do with the sense, that finally after 2000 years, the Jews can decide for themselves how and when to define a threat to their existence as genuine and then deal with it. In the past, as described, there were examples of Israel trusting others in a moment of truth, but can they do it in the IRAN CASE?

SO-What are Israel’s options? The basis for this part of the article is the belief that Israeli intelligence assessment that Iran is a few months before being able to produce a nuclear device is correct. I have no reason to doubt it, especially as even among those who accept this assessment, there is a divergence of opinions as to what should be done about that, but not a dispute over the fact stated here.

Here are Israel’s options.

A] The Ehud Barak option-the former PM, a decorated war veteran but a failing politician suggests, that EVEN if Iran possesses the bomb, it is not a mortal danger to Israel, as Iran will not use it against Israel. Easy to discount him but let us look at the Indian-Pakistani model. The two countries are traditional, historic foes that possess the bomb, and nothing has happened. They continue to dislike each other, but the bomb is well stored in hidden caves, and life continues as usual. Wrong comparison-both countries do not question the very legitimacy of their existence, do not threaten to annihilate each other. Moreover, in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran proved its ability to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of people, among them many children, in order to defeat the Iraqi enemy. Let us be perfectly honest, maybe cynical, here. Is Iran ready to sacrifice even millions for the sake of destroying Israel? Barak may say no, most of the world may say no, but can most of the JEWS REALLY can dismiss this option? Here is ONE Jew who does not. Let me go beyond-why? . The argument can be that Israel [though never officially admitting it] does possess its own nuclear weapons, so the Iranians can expect it to be used against them. My answer – Israel CANNOT sustain even one atomic bomb, but Iran Can. Population size, as well as geography, make it a clear case.

B] To wait and see what will come out of the current round of the Iran nuclear talks, knowing that the Iranians play for time and the hectic uranium enrichment process continues relentlessly.

Then, the question is, when will Israel decide that it waited long enough? Trusting the Western powers and the US in this case, will give the Bennett government points for ”good behavior”, but will also tie the hands of Israel. If they trust these powers to decide when the talks are futile, then the expectation is to let them also the time they ask for a decision what to do about that, and their time calculations will definitely be different than Israel’s.

Give a timetable for the West- a specific number of weeks or few months for negotiations, and then what? Then a forceful military strike by them, meaning the US with help of others [Britain] and Israel. Likelihood -NOT high-US is NOT interested in a war with Iran, especially when there are the looming threats of Russia and China. Let me go a step further-I, for one, suspect that the emphasis on Russia and China is there in the US, among other reasons, because of the desire to downplay the Iran situation. Moreover, there is NO public opinion in the US in support of a unilateral American strike against Iran, or an American-Israeli strike. Not even a majority of American Jews will support it.

D] The US sanctions a new nuclear deal with Iran which still keeps the question of Iran’s involvement in other countries in the Middle East untouched and is opposed by Israel because it does not provide effective verification machinery. Israel continues covert actions against Iran, but the US opposes it and threatens Israel with punitive measures. Bennett succumbs to the pressure, but encounters opposition within the government, and is exposed to strong pressures from the outside by Likud under Netanyahu.

E] Israel, as well as the US, can play for time, even IF Iran is already in possession of a bomb, and try to intensify activities designed to subvert and maybe bring down the Islamist regime.

A lot of covert activities against the regime have taken place, and on occasions, they were very embarrassing to the Ayatollahs, but looking at the situation in Iran, one can see that the regime seems stable and definitely resilient. Playing for time, therefore, when Iran does possess a bomb can be a dangerous gamble.

F] Israel is coming to the moment of truth-No nuclear talks, there is American rhetoric against Iran, even fiercer American sanctions against her, BUT Israeli intelligence utters the word-It is NOW, or else Iran is already nuclear. What then? Bennett asks Biden for permission to strike, Biden says not yet, or let me deal with it, or even you are on your own, moreover threatens, that in the aftermath of a strike, when the Security Council decides on Sanctions AGAINST ISRAEL, the US will not oppose. Bennett is having to make a Ben-Gurion type of decision like the one on the eve of 14 MAY 1948, or a Begin decision like the one on the eve of 7 June 1981. Will he act as a Jewish leader with the burden of history, past, present, and future on his shoulders? I believe he SHOULD. I am not at all sure he WOULD.

That leaves us with one question and one observation to end up with. 

First, the observation-Many Israelis and Jews abroad can try to ignore Jewish history, maybe even to run away from it. The reality is, that Jewish history will catch up with them. Iran IS an existential threat. The Jews are again having to struggle for survival, again being the only ones in the world who have to face this situation.

Then the question? Does Israel really have a credible, viable, accessible military option against Iran? This is a question to be dealt with in detail in a different article, but my answer is yes.
Israel has it! Hopefully, Israel will not have to use it, realistically the clock is ticking very fast, and this option, as dangerous and alarming as it is, may be the ONE left.

Dr. Josef Olmert is a Senior Fellow at the Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research and an adjunct professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina