Obama: Since We All Know That Engagement With Iran Won’t Work, How About A US Nuclear Umbrella For Israel?

How generous:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran. But America’s nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.

First of all, of course it’s a sign that Obama is willing to roll with a nuclear Iran. Which is weird because Dennis Ross and Marty Peretz assured American Jews that preventing Iranian nuclearization was at the top of Obama’s agenda. Maybe they were just offering pretexts so Obama voters could vote how they already wanted to vote. Stranger things have happened.

Listen: this obviously wasn’t an offer meant to be taken seriously.

No one – conspiracy mongers excepted – really believes that the US would risk a nuclear war over Israel. No US President is going to risk legitimating a WMD attack on New York because Iran wiped out Tel Aviv. After all: who will complain if – in the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear first strike – the Obama White House responds only with “tough international diplomacy” that “makes it clear to the Iranians” that their actions are “unacceptable.” The Israelis?

The Iranians certainly don’t think much of a US nuclear umbrella. This is a country that just called France’s ambassador to the carpet because Sarkozy said that Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel were “unacceptable.” That’s the level of commitment that Iran has to getting “Israel should be destroyed” put on the spectrum of legitimate public debate. They’ve looked at history. They’ve seen that the West appeases genocidal lunatics when those lunatics to move the diplomatic goal via ever greater unblinking insanity. They’ve acted accordingly.

Which is one of the many, many reasons why the Israelis – like the Iranians – don’t really think much of Obama’s offer:

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration. “What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?” asked a senior Israeli security source. “What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?”

The Obama people knew in advance that people would roll their eyes at this suggestion. So why even make the offer? Two potential reasons:

(1) Pressure on Israeli self-defense vs. Iran – This is actually an old trick. It hasn’t really been pulled off this brazenly since Gulf War I. At that time Baker facilitated the transfer of utterly useless Patriots to Israel while exerting enormous pressure on Shamir not to retaliate to Iraqi SCUDS. The result was a loss of Israeli deterrence that’s still talked about as a watershed moment.

Grandiose shows of US support – even the nudge-wink symbolic ones – diplomatically box in Israel. This new declaration is already the second time Obama’s been to this well. When he announced that he’s open for talks with Tehran he insisted that “threats against Israel are unacceptable.” Since then Iran has more than once called for the destruction of Israel. But why is Israel so worried about US engagement, the Brzezinskis and the Mearsheimers ask, when Obama publicly committed to protecting their interests?

This offer is the same thing. Any preemptive Israeli strike will now be branded an “overreaction” that “destabilized the region” and “created anti-American resentment” – because why is Israel worried when it has a US security guarantee? This scenario isn’t exactly wild speculation: Brzezinski was already saying exactly that. Plus the argument is a natural fit with the broader inclination of Obama’s foreign policy team: tag Israel for the length and breadth of Middle East instability.

All of that aside, the nuclear umbrella is about as effective as 1990-era Patriots. It certainly doesn’t relieve the daily pressure on Israelis who live under the shadow of an Iranian Bomb. If they don’t believe that the Iranians take the US umbrella seriously – and they don’t and shouldn’t – then Iranian nuclearization still makes life unlivable in Israel. Which is the whole point.

(2) Pressure on Israel’s nuclear deterrent – Starting from the assumption that nobody takes Obama’s pledge seriously, Allah mused that it might make sense as a way of setting up Israeli disarmament. Given that the last month has seen influential foreign policy experts call on Obama to push exactly that and international efforts have been launched to push exactly that – yeah, something like exactly that might not be a stretch.

The irony is that even making the empty offer signals to the mullahs that they can play hardball and quietly go nuclear. And here I was told that Obama’s foreign advisers were heavyweights who understood every nuance and intricacy of realpolitik. Maybe the President-Elect spontaneously decided to float a sweeping defense pact without running it by them first. But probably not.

UPDATE – this post has been edited to fix a plethora of typos and run-on sentences. Thanks to Jerry for the gentle nudge.

References:
* Obama’s atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel [Ha'aretz]
* Dennis Ross: “I’m Endorsing Obama Because He’ll Make Iran And Iran’s Financial Backers Like Us” [MR]
* Marty Peretz: Based On All Available Evidence I Disagree With Susan Rice, Who Is Nonetheless Awesome In Every Way (Plus: Misguided Victim-Complex Paranoia On The Pro-Israel Right) [MR]
* Teheran summons French ambassador over Sarkozy’s Israel remarks [JPost]
* Brzezinski: Israeli Campaign Against Iran Will Detonate US-Israel Relations [MR]
* Obama Foreign Policy Appointees: Israel To Blame For Mideast Instability, Sweeping Concessions Necessary [MR]
* Source: Obama to nuke Iran if Iran nukes Israel [Hot Air]
* US Foreign Policy Experts To Obama: Take Away Israel’s Nuclear Deterrent [MR]
* French Disarmament Efforts Train Sights On Israel’s Deterrent [MR]
* Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran …but only in retaliation [Steyn / NRO Corner]

Previously:
* LA Times Quotes Syrian Conspiracy Mongering As "IAEA Report", Blames Israel For Syrian Uranium Traces
* IAEA Aiding Covert Syrian Nuke Program By Building Overt Syrian Nuke Program
* Jordan’s Understanding Of Peace, Cultural Normalization Somewhat Lacking