Israel would inform, not ask US before hitting Iran

TEL AVIV,  (Reuters) – When he first got word of  Israel’s sneak attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981, U.S.  President Ronald Reagan privately shrugged it off, telling his  national security adviser: “Boys will be boys!”

Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if today’s Israelis made  good on years of threats and bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities,   yanking the United States into an unprecedented Middle East  eruption that could dash his goal of easing regional tensions  through revived and redoubled U.S. outreach?

For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin  Netanyahu readily take on Iran alone, given his country’s  limited firepower and the risk of stirring up a backlash against  the Jewish state among war-weary, budget-strapped Americans?

Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies  are now so enmeshed in strategic ties — with dialogue at the  highest level of government and military — that complete  Israeli autonomy on a major issue like Iran is notional only.

So while no one questions Israel’s willingness to attack  should it deem U.S.-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium  enrichment a dead end, such strikes would almost certainly  entail at least last-minute coordination with Washington.

Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot  down by accident if overflying U.S.-occupied Iraq, and to give  Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals.

“Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington  to attack Iran is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region  would believe that the U.S. was complicit,” said Karim  Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

One U.S. diplomat envisaged Israeli Defence Minister Ehud  Barak telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, “to  give a heads-up and explain” once the mission were under way.   Gates and the U.S. military brass have voiced distaste for  pre-emptive strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment  is for legitimate electricity production, not weapons. But their  public comments have acknowledged that Israel could break rank.

“I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs  to do, regardless of whether the U.S. approves,” said Mark  Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation expert at the International  Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

“Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission.”

A retired Israeli general who advises the government on  strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in  recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States:

“The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obama’s calls for  diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its  hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability.”

Syrian precedent

Israel’s bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a  North Korean-built reactor in Syria may provide a precedent.

According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel  carried out the sortie alone, but only after “letting the  Americans know that something like this could happen. It’s the  difference between informing, and seeking consent.”

It was the United States which, a year later, published the  allegations about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a  superpower against Syrian denials. Israel, which has never  discussed the attack, was spared the burden of proving its case.

As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the  Israeli former general said any joint strategy would go unformed  at least until the leaders held their first summit on May 18.

“There’s a sense that no decision has been made on either  side,” he said. “My impression is that the current American  statements are for the record, to convince the international  community about the seriousness of the Obama administration’s  efforts to talk Tehran into a solution.”

Regardless of Obama’s eventual stance, it would be severely  tested should U.S. interests be threatened — say, with Iran  answering an Israeli bombing by goading Shi’ites in Iraq to  stoke the embers of their insurgency, or by choking off oil  exports.   “Whatever temporary sense of solidarity with Israel that  ensued would be through gritted teeth,” said Fitzpatrick, a  former U.S. State Department official.

Then again, drawing in the United States, with its superior  air power, could serve Israel’s endgame of putting paid to  Iran’s nuclear facilities. Most analysts think Israel’s  warplanes might set back Iran’s plans by a few years at best and  could never erase the knowledge of Iran’s atomic scientists.

After reacting to the 1981 Iraq strike by saying —  according to then-National Security Adviser Richard Allen —  “You know what, Dick? Boys will be boys!”, Reagan rapped Israel  by holding up a shipment of F-16 jets.

Future U.S. administrations would thank the Israelis for  denting the might of Saddam Hussein — whom the Reagan White  House backed against Iran at the time.

Fitzpatrick said U.S. public opinion would swing in Israel’s  favour “if Iran is stopped from achieving a nuclear weapons  capability, and the price is not too great in terms of attacks  on American citizens and facilities”.

Obama’s punitive options could, in theory, include cutting  the billions in U.S. defence aid and loan guarantees to Israel,  though he would face opposition in an Israel-friendly Congress.

Washington could also call for a nuclear-free Middle East as  part of a regional peace drive, arguing that, with Iran  neutralised and the Arab world mollified, Israel’s own assumed  atomic arsenal should no longer go unchecked.