Mitigating the consequences

Israel does not need weaponry to purchase restraint; it needs weapons that can quickly convince the enemy to desist.

By AMIEL UNGAR
Military bauble: The US Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision-guided, 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ bomb (photo credit: US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)
Military bauble: The US Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision-guided, 30,000-pound ‘bunker buster’ bomb
(photo credit: US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)
INSTEAD OF a symbolic vote of disapproval following a rousing US Senate debate, a filibuster provided an anticlimax to the congressional review of the Iranian nuclear deal.
It is unseemly that US President Barack Obama, who previously conceded that a failed agreement would carry his name for posterity, would have shrunk from taking responsibility by exercising a presidential veto that the deal’s opponents could not hope to override.
The tragic deal, however, is now in the records and Israel has no recourse but to mitigate its consequences. Two immediate issues confront Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he prepares for his November meeting with Obama: how to rebuild ties with the Democratic Party and what to include in the security compensation package that he will present to the American administration.
As to the first issue, a blanket kiss-and-make up exercise between Netanyahu and the entire Democratic caucus would be insincere and counterproductive; the approach must be selective. Obviously there can be no problem with the minority of House and Senate Democrats, who bucked the administration and opposed the deal.
This base should be expanded to legislators who, while acknowledging the deal to be deeply flawed, nevertheless supported it for one of the following reasons: They felt that the train had left the station and to reject the deal at this stage would leave the United States isolated; they reasoned that the deal was a necessary stopgap to halt Iran’s race to the bomb but now that the nuclear threat had been averted, it was necessary and possible to push back against Iran’s drive for regional hegemony and its attempts to destabilize the Middle East.
It is premature to seek a rapprochement with those Democrats who were ecstatic over the Iran deal from the get go because it presumably brings Tehran out of the diplomatic cold and enables Iran to play a constructive role in a Middle East equilibrium. The divide with them is too wide and, at best, time and future events can bridge them.
As for the compensation package, I would leave it to the defense experts to decide if Israel really needs the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), precision- guided, 30,000-pound (14,000 kilo) “bunker buster” bomb or other military baubles on offer. The more important issue is how and when these weapons can be used. Owning the most sophisticated weapons is pointless, if too many constraints are imposed on their use or if their availability blocks Israeli policy options.
For example, Israel is grateful for the administration’s support for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense program.
However, there is a downside to the system as can be inferred from comments made by former defense minister Amir Peretz. Peretz pushed for the development of the system believing in Iron Dome’s capacity for saving lives, but he also viewed it as a breathing space that would permit Israel to hold off from ground operations. Israel under the Iron Dome could now absorb more sustained missile attacks before responding with overwhelming force.
Israel does not need weaponry to purchase restraint; it needs weapons that can quickly convince the enemy to desist.
We should take the Iranians at their word that Israel will know no peace until its demise. Tehran’s Hamas and Hezbollah surrogates will definitely play a major role in this campaign of disturbing Israel’s peace and the response cannot be entrapment in a war of attrition, but the employment of massive and decisive force.
Given the hitherto successful strategy of Hezbollah and Hamas to position their weaponry behind human shields, a massive response is certain to cause collateral damage as has occurred in all wars and with all combatants, including lately the Americans in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. When the gruesome scenes appear on the television screens, will the administration press for an immediate cease-fire and embargo the supply of parts? If the administration is sincere about pushing back against Iran’s proxies, these issues must be ironed out in advance. ■
Contributor Amiel Ungar is also a columnist for the Hebrew weekly Besheva