Israelis Divided on Whacking Iran
by Conn Hallinan
Dispatches From The Edge
February 20, 2011
http://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/
 

Behind the recent appointment of Israel's new military
chief of staff are several months of bitter infighting
among Israeli generals and intelligence agencies over
whether to attack Iran, and, in the event of such an
attack, how to rope the U.S. into the war.

The replacement of Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi with Maj.
Gen. Benny Gantz is the outcome of a seesaw battle
between a wing of the Israeli army, allied with the
intelligence services, that have cautioned against a war
with Iran, pitted against Israel's Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and a
coterie of more aggressive generals. The feud has become
so intense that veteran military analyst Ron Ben-Yishai
says, "The state of Israel is sinking into anarchy."

According to the Asia Time's Victor Kotsev, Ashkenazi,
backed by Israel's intelligence chiefs, and possibly
with quiet support from Washington, maneuvered to block
Barak's choice for a new chief of staff by torpedoing
the candidacy of Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, and then
blocking the Defense Minister's attempt to appoint the
hawkish Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh as acting chief of staff.

The civil war, according to Kotsev, reflects "a split in
Israeli political and military circles on whether to
attack Iran. According to [veteran Israeli journalist
Aluf] Benn, the outgoing chiefs of the army and the
intelligence .are firmly opposed to a unilateral
military intervention, while Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Barak have stacked their political
fortunes on a strike."

The falling out between Ashkenazi and Barak began last
year when the latter opposed the defense minister's
proposal to attack Iran, remarking, "Initiating such a
war will only bring disaster on Israel." Barak responded
by shortening Ashkenazi's tenure and replacing him with
Galant, the controversial general who lead operation
"Cast Lead," the brutal assault on Gaza in December
2008-January 2009 that killed more than 1,400
Palestinians.

According to the Israeli Daily Haaretz, Galant was seen
as "more aggressive on Iran and will not block Netanyahu
and Barak, who are eager to go into battle against
Iran."

But Galant had to withdraw when it was revealed that he
had appropriated public land that surrounded his villa
in northern Israel, and Barak blamed Ashkenazi-almost
certainly correctly-for leaking the scandal. Barak had
already alienated the military by trying to shift the
blame for last year's disastrous interception of the
Turkish ship Mavi Marmara onto the army and intelligence
agencies.

The whole brouhaha has weakened Barak, who lost whatever
base he had when he recently pulled out of the Labor
Party to start up a more centrist organization. "Barak
suffered one of the toughest routs of his life, second
only to his loss of the Prime Minister's post in the
2001 elections," says Israeli journalist Amir Oren.

Israeli analyst Benn suggests that Washington might
have had a hand in the affair by encouraging resistance
to Barak within the Israeli military. Gantz is seen as
a general with close ties to his American counterparts,
and word has it that the Pentagon was chilly toward
Barak during his recent visit to Washington. With Barak
badly wounded by the fight, there are a number of
players on the sidelines, including rightwing Likudites
Moshe Ya'alon and Dan Meridor, who are hankering after
his job.

This fight is hardly a split between doves and hawks.
According to columnist J.J. Goldberg of the Jewish
weekly Forward, while the new Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen.
Benny Gantz, has "spoken scathingly" of the "short-
sighted strategic vision of Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak," he is hardly
part of some peace faction. Rather the division seems to
be between aggressive right-wingers supported by the
settler movement and opposed to any agreement with the
Arabs, and a more "cautious faction" that includes
Ashkenazi.

Ashkenazi favors "covert action"-military-speak for
targeted assassinations-and returning the Golan Heights
to Syria as a strategy to divide Damascus and Teheran,
"a view shared unanimously by the heads of Israel's
intelligence agencies" says Goldberg.

But the now-retired chief of staff is hardly some kind
of peacenik. In his farewell address, Ashkenazi talked
of "tectonic changes" in the Middle East and gave a
generally gloomy view of an Israel surrounded by growing
Islamic fundamentalism in Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and
possibly Egypt. His opposition to attacking Iran has
less to do with the political fallout than the fear that
Israel would do so "unilaterally."

It is not clear where Gantz or the newly appointed
intelligence heads stand on the matter of Iran, but
Reuters reports that "the new crop of generals and
spymasters could prove more cooperative to war orders"
from the civilian administration.

There are powerful forces arguing for attacking Iran,
many of them among the newly resurgent American neo-
conservatives. U.S House Resolution 1533, introduced
last year by 46 Republicans, supports Israel using "any
means necessary" against Iran. While H-1533 languished
in the Foreign Affairs Committee when Democrats
controlled the House, the resolution is certain to re-
emerge with Republicans in charge.

The charge to war, according to Gareth Porter of IPS, is
led by neo-cons like Reuel Marc Gerecht, the former
director of the New American Century, a think tank that
can claim much of the credit for getting the Bush
Administration to invade Iraq. "What is important to
understand about this campaign," says Porter, "is that
the aim of Gerecht and the right-wing government of
Benjamin Netanyahu is to support an attack by Israel so
that the United States can be drawn into a direct, full-
scale war with Iran."

The neo-cons want more than surgical strikes aimed at
Iran's nuclear industry, they want a real war-"No cruise
missiles at midnight to minimize the body count" says
Gerecht-and regime change. As David Wurmster, former
vice-president Dick Cheney's key advisor on the Middle
East, put it, "If we start shooting, we must be prepared
to fire the last shot. Don't shoot a bear if you are not
going to kill it."

The campaign is aimed at creating domestic pressure on
the Obama administration to back Israel once it attacks.
Israel has a powerful air force and navy, but unless it
used some of its nuclear arsenal-an act that is hard to
contemplate but by no means out of the question-it can't
do the job on its own.

Would most Americans back such an attack? Polls show
that a majority of Americans don't want a war with Iran,
but that they also strongly support Israel. If the
Iranians can be demonized enough-the current regime's
crackdown on dissent is already doing a pretty good job
in that regard-might those numbers shift? Gerecht thinks
they will: "If the Israelis bomb now, American public
opinion will probably be with them, perhaps decisively
so."

In the meantime, the Netanyahu administration is doing
its best to whip up anti-Iranian sentiment. Israeli
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the recent
transit of two Iranian warships through the Suez Canal a
"provocation," even though the canal is an international
waterway and recently saw several Israeli warships pass
through it on their way into the Persian Gulf.
"Unfortunately, the international community is not
showing readiness to deal with the recurring Iranian
provocations," Lieberman said. "The international
community must understand that Israel cannot ignore
these provocations forever."

Bombast? Certainly the Israeli Foreign Minister is
renowned for that, but in this case he has strong
support in the Tel Aviv government, among the powerful
settler movement, and with at least some of the
military. As the Israeli daily Haaretz notes, "2010 went
by without a war with Iran. In the winter no one goes to
war because the clouds limit air force operations. But
in 2011, a conflict is brewing."

It is a conflict that could escalate from a regional
calamity to an international disaster if the U.S. joins
in.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate