Though it seems more recent, nearly a year has passed since the suicide of Tunisian fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the independence movement that continues to reverberate across the Greater Middle East. It had roots in the Palestinian nationalism of 1967 and the intifada of 1987, the Iranian revolution of 1979, and the Turkish return from militant secularism of the 1990s. This shaking off of Western tutelage, as Chas Freeman terms it (see his "The Mess in the Middle East,"), is still a work in progress, but there will be no going all the way back from more indigenous cultural and religious norms in politics.

In late September, the Palestinians made a formal bid for statehood at the United Nations and were later accepted for membership in UNESCO, enraging their Washington overlords. It marked the end of the peace process. Fittingly, Dennis Ross resigned from the Obama administration to spend more time with his family and the Israel lobby. In mid-November, Egyptians, who had hoped for more of a clean break with the Mubarak past, filled Tahrir Square in disappointment and anger (see Ahmed Hashim on the Egyptian military). Despite Arab League efforts to isolate and shame the Asad regime, Syrians continue to bleed and die in their city streets; gut-wrenching photographs are all over the Internet. However, Libyans' overthrow and murder of their dictator — with NATO assistance — is not a model for the heterogeneous Levant (See Fildis on Syria's colonial history, and Lacher on Libya). No entity seems to consider it feasible to ride to Syria's rescue, though economic sanctions may eventually bring down the Asads; the country's resources are relatively meager. The suffering in Yemen also deserves a moment of silent respect and empathy, though, again, armed intervention is not on the table, it seems.

The one country that must fear the possibility of military attack is Israel's primary enemy, Iran. Can the development of nuclear technology by the Islamic Republic be permitted to continue? The Netanyahu government says no and threatens to use bombs to make sure it doesn't. Perhaps this is merely manipulation of President Barack Obama, to force him into an error that will ensure his defeat for a second term and the potential freedom of maneuver in foreign policy it would bring. Whether that error would be to attack Iran or to hold back is unknowable today.

Israel warns of the "crazy" mullahs in Tehran, with their alleged nuclear facilities becoming more and more viable, whether as a doomsday machine against the Zionists or as a deterrent to foreign aggression. However, the November report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is still written in the subjunctive — may, might, could — when describing what Iran is purportedly doing in its underground labs. These known unknowns are very difficult to target for destruction and may therefore already offer something of a deterrent. Alternative means of retarding Iran's nuclear progress have not succeeded, including the assassination of nuclear scientists and the infection of their computer systems with the Stuxnet worm — alleged to have been carried out by Israeli and American intelligence operatives. Secondary boycotts are being suggested, to stop China, Russia and others from doing business with the Iranians. Diplomacy seems to be off the table, just as it used to be when Israel forbade Washington to deal with the PLO during the '70s and '80s, allegedly because it was a terrorist organization.

The Israelis, of course, are not really afraid of Iran. Defense Minister Ehud Barak spilled a few beans when he told Charlie Rose on his November 16 television program that the Islamic Republic's decision to develop a nuclear weapon was driven by the need to keep up with the other nuclear powers in the neighborhood — China, India, Pakistan. It was not, then, due to a desire to wipe Israel off the map; that was hyperbolic rhetoric, to fix American attention on Iranian leaders' irrational anti-Semitism. The situation is eerily reminiscent of the run-up to the Iraq War. Because we know how that adventure turned out, cooler heads are now prevailing, such as U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:

You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here. And those consequences could involve not only not really deterring Iran from what they want to do, but, more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on U.S. forces in the region.

The conclusion by Israel's deep thinkers is similar. According to Reuters (accessed November 16 at the Robert Dreyfuss blog, www.thenation.com):

A leading Israeli investment firm said on Thursday any military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would exact an economic price too high for the world to accept, and as a result, it would likely acquiesce to a nuclear Iran. A sharp rise in the price of oil, the costs of war and the damage to global trade would be too great and deter world powers from taking any serious action, said Amir Kahanovich, chief economist at Clal Finance, one of Israel's largest brokerage houses ["The Iranian Issue through Economic Eyes"]. The assessment differed sharply from Israel's official position that Tehran's nuclear aspirations are unacceptable and that all options are on the table in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, which it views as a threat to its existence.

So scaring Iran and its allies was Israel's point — and affecting the U.S. election perhaps. Stay tuned six months from now, when the 2012 race will be getting serious.

A nuclear topic that is seldom discussed is Israel's regional monopoly; U.S. government documents relating to it are still classified. Part of that history is detailed in this issue by Leonard Weiss, who is in a unique position to analyze it. He was Senator John Glenn's chief adviser on nonproliferation issues in 1979, when an apparent nuclear test took place in the Indian Ocean involving Israel and the apartheid regime in South Africa. At the time, the Cold War was raging, America's friend the shah of Iran had just fallen, and Israel was still considered a U.S. aircraft carrier in the region.

The U.S. commitment to Israel's qualitative edge over its enemies has enabled its nuclear monopoly. No need for diplomacy, containment, parity or mutually assured destruction. A comment by the American Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow that recently came to my attention may explain Israel's need for total control of its environment: a militarily peerless Israel negates the Holocaust. Diplomacy, the give and take between adversaries, is for the weak. This puts the "threat" from an Iranian deterrent in some perspective. It must be said, however, that Israel's control of its environment would be impossible without control over the U.S. government. Ambassador Freeman's essay on U.S. policy in the region contains a lucid exploration of this phenomenon.

Anne Joyce
November 20, 2011