Shekels for Shells

It is interesting to observe that for those Americans with an opinion on the matter, many believe that Israel and its electorate are of one mind in a commitment to use force, alone if necessary, against Iran’s nuclear enrichment program if the latter nation does not stop that effort. In some American circles, it is considered downright anti-Semitic not to champion that “attack Iran” as the right thing to do. But war always has unintended consequences and military risks. It is budget-busting. There are even strong signs that Iran’s economy is crumbling from the Western-imposed sanctions that actually may be working. This knee-jerk resort to the military option begs the assumption that new nuclear nations will deploy nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat or spread nukes everywhere. How many seconds if after North Korea elected to nuke a Western nation would it cease to exist?

According to every major poll taken this year, the majority of Israelis do not want to go it alone and attack Iran. Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak seem to be preparing their people (and of course pressing the United States to join) for such an attack. Like the Republican Party in the United States, their conservative Likud Party in Israel is very pro-military. There are, however, large segments of Israeli society that are challenging this militaristic effort, and the signs of the resulting instability in that country are everywhere.

As this saber-rattling has created the kind of high anxiety that destabilizes economies, the consequences have been quite measurable. “Concern that the Israeli moves may herald a possible strike helped weaken the shekel to its lowest value in almost 15 months... sent government benchmark bond yields climbing and pushed the Tel Aviv Stock Market (TA-25) to a three-week low on Aug. 13. The Bloomberg Israel-US Equity Index of the most-traded Israeli companies in New York sank the most in three months, making the benchmark gauge the cheapest in two years relative to the Standard & Poor’s 500.” BusinessWeek.com, August 15^th.

Additionally, while Israel may not have had the benefit of former U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower’s unheeded admonition about the unbridled power of allowing the “military industrial complex” excessive budgets and relatively free reign, their military has had a history of creating fears that naturally require high military expenditures. On August 17^th, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz editorialized: “Every year, for as long as Israel has existed, the army has intimidated the ministers and the public with various threats in order to increase its budget. Once the threat was Egypt, then came Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Hezbollah and the intifada, and now the Iranian bomb.”

Netanyahu is facing the same kinds of deficit issues that plague so many countries around the world, most certainly including the United States. He is also fighting a familiar battle to increase, or at least maintain at current levels, the Israeli military budget, and the familiar pattern of posing huge threats that cannot be addressed without an enhanced military is being repeated half a world away in Israel. “From Aug. 1, when Netanyahu issued a statement saying, ‘Time to resolve this issue peacefully is running out,’ through Thursday, when Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, ‘There are risks in the situation today . . . [but] it’s infinitely more dangerous . . . to deal with a nuclear Iran in the future,’ the drumbeat from Israel has been steady and growing louder.

“On Aug. 12, Netanyahu added a new twist. He had known for six months that his defense minister would be leaving this month. After all, he had chosen him to be his new ambassador to China. He officially named a successor [August 14^th]... The choice of an old army comrade, Avi Dichter, set off a new round of stories about getting additional funds for gas masks and bomb shelters in preparation, of course, for Iran’s response should the Israelis attack Tehran’s nuclear facilities.” Washington Post, August 20^th.

But Netanyahu is certainly not all bluster. Iran is heading towards nuclear capacity at warp speed: “International nuclear inspectors will soon report that Iran has installed hundreds of new centrifuges in recent months and may also be speeding up production of nuclear fuel while negotiations with the United States and its allies have ground to a near halt, according to diplomats and experts briefed on the findings.” New York Times, August 23^rd. Would they use this capacity to attack Israel… knowing that seconds later a rain of nuclear warheads would end the notion of Iran as they (and we) know it?

While Israel is a solid and trusted ally that we are committed to defend, we really need to understand that questioning the use of the military option against Iran is essential for American policy-makers, who have been so wrong in anticipating the cost and unintended consequences so often in initiating attacks against supposed enemies, Iraq and Afghanistan being two recent glaring examples. If so many Israelis are questioning this choice, why shouldn’t we? The last few major military efforts we have mounted have not gone our way, and Iran has operatives all over the planet ready to move. Oil prices will spike to new heights, and most certainly our economy will suffer accordingly. What exactly are the unintended consequences of such a military strike, preemptive or reactive? Are we really willing to pay that price?

I’m Peter Dekom, and our fragile economy cannot tolerate massive political mistakes with even bigger price tags anymore.