Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
bjbjLULU RAY SUAREZ: I'm joined now by David Ignatius of The Washington Post, who s with
the defense secretary in Munich, Germany, and David Makovsky, former executive editor
of The Jerusalem Post. He's now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. David Ignatius,
let me start with you. You have written of the zone of immunity that Iran is supposedly
entering which is pushing the timeline. What is that? What does that mean? DAVID IGNATIUS,
Columnist, The Washington Post: Israeli officials have described it to U.S. officials, the zone
of immunity is the moment at which Iran has accumulated enough enriched uranium that it
is able to proceed to build a nuclear weapon from that point on. In other words, if you
don't strike before they enter that zone of immunity, they will be able to construct the
bomb and you won't be able to stop it. This is a concern in part because of a very deep
Iranian bunkered facilities near Qom that Israeli weapons probably could not reach.
U.S. weapons might be able to reach them, which is why the U.S. timeline is somewhat
different. The U.S. could wait longer before attacking until it saw evidence that the Iranians
were actually making a bomb, that is to say, after they had entered this zone. The Israelis
think that they can't wait, and they don't want to depend on the U.S. RAY SUAREZ: David
Makovsky, zone of immunity or not, given the way the Iranian system is scattered, well
protected, would a military strike be effective at halting it? DAVID MAKOVSKY, Washington
Institute For Near East Policy: Well, I think they believe in Israel that it would be. I
was just there last month. And there's an active debate at the top among the cabinet
people and the top security people. They're pretty convinced they could attack. But David
Ignatius got it exactly right. Ehud Barak gave an interview in November, didn't get
a lot of play, where he said basically you have got six to nine months until -- that
they enter the zone of immunity, meaning that they have such well-fortified sites underground,
that there s a certain point where you just can't attack. So this is kind of a year of
decision for them in Israel. It's a kind of now-or-never kind of element. It is not something
they are yearning to do. They would hope that sanctions work. But they feel they have to
make a decision amid suboptimal conditions. They don't have America's military capability,
and their window closes quicker than the United States'. RAY SUAREZ: Well, you mentioned the
sanctions working. David Ignatius, is that a big gamble for Israel, not to wait to see
if the sanctions, which, by widespread reporting, are really cutting deep in Iran, do have time
to work? DAVID IGNATIUS: The United States government believes that it is a mistake for
Israel to consider launching or launch such an attack. They believe that the sanctions
are working, that there is an international coalition that has been assembled that is
increasingly aggressive in trying to stop this Iranian program. They worry that a unilateral
Israeli strike would blow that coalition apart. So they think this is a bad idea. I want to
be very clear about that. Also, I should make clear that U.S. officials don't believe that
Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet made the decision to strike. They just think that there
s a strong likelihood that he will make that decision. RAY SUAREZ: David Makovsky? DAVID
MAKOVSKY: I agree. I think that there's two people kind of leading the effort. It's Defense
Minister Ehud Barak. I would say a quarter-step behind him is the prime minister, Netanyahu.
And these are two people who would prefer a -- their first preference, sanctions work,
this issue is solved peacefully, everyone s happiest. Their second preference, I think,
would be that Israel could back off and that the United States that has greater capability
and a longer timeline could deal with it. But because they're not sure of what the U.S.
would do if sanctions don't prove to be decisive, they're left with their third choice, which
is that they might have to strike earlier because of their closing window. But, you
know, what I ve learned, if you look at the history, where there's two other incidents
where Israel has hit -- have hit nuclear sites, one of Iraq, one of Syria, in each case, there
were divisions. And at the time when Israel hit the Osirak reactor of Saddam Hussein,
the head of the Mossad was against, the head of military intelligence was against it. But
a determined prime minister brought his cabinet around, even though it took a little longer,
frankly, until they made a decision. David Ignatius got it exactly right. They haven't
made a decision yet. But I think that Barak and Netanyahu would prefer that somehow this
is somehow is taken care of otherwise. But they are fearful is they are going to be left
holding the bag, because, unless they have greater understandings with the United States
-- when Leon Panetta says this is a red line for America if Iran does such and such on
their nuclear program, I think if there is a greater understanding of what that red line
was and what the consequences of an American response would be, I think the United States
could reshape that debate in Israel, even though it s at a late phase, and the Israelis
would back off. So I don't think we should speak about it as an inevitability. I think
it s just, rather, a strong possibility. RAY SUAREZ: David Ignatius, greater understandings
between Israel and the United States. Is there also a risk, given that the United States,
by your reporting, is discouraging Israel at this point, that any unilateral action
by the Israelis would drive a wedge in that close bilateral alliance? DAVID IGNATIUS:
Yes, I think that s one of the dangers that the Israelis need to consider. This administration,
as I understand it, has made clear to Israel that we don't think this is wise, that we
don't think it's in our interest or Israel's, and that we think the unintended, unanticipated
consequences could be very damaging across the region. And so I think Israeli does need
to consider whether its crucial strategic relationship with the United States would
be seriously negatively affected if it went ahead and did something despite these strong
arguments against it from the United States. Again, Israel feels, this Israeli government,
but I think every Israeli government feels that in the end it alone has to make decisions
about how it's going to be secure. It can't depend on anybody else. And that is part of
what I think we're seeing play out, is the pressure of Israel against its key ally, but
this sense that in the end we have -- Israelis have to be masters of their own fate. RAY
SUAREZ: Before we close, I would like to hear from both of you about the cost-benefit analysis
being made on both sides. If you only slow down and don't stop the Iranian program, but
unleash military strikes, could the possibilities for Iranian retaliation, for destabilization
in the region be so severe, that the blowback is worse than what you accomplish with the
attack? DAVID MAKOVSKY: Look, I think that is why there's division inside Israel, because
there are concerns about regional consequences. I don't think they believe there is going
to be a full-blown Middle East war as a result of this. The worst they see it would be that
they have to deal with some retaliation from Iran, and there would be a Hezbollah northern
border situation. They have to weigh the risks of action versus the risks of inaction. They
see the risk of inaction meaning you're going to have a nuclear arms race in the Middle
East, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey all wanting to counter the Iranian bomb. You ll
see a proliferation to non-state actors like Hezbollah maybe some dirty bomb technology,
that you ll be emboldening rejectionists, you ll be intimidating moderates. So they
see this as a profound change in the balance of power. On the other hand, as you point
out, there is risk of action. Where I would generally disagree with David Ignatius, respectfully,
is that I don't think it as much like the Zionist ethos of self-reliance. I think it
more like, if there was a way to synchronize the clocks, I think Israeli would certainly
be welcome to it. They are aware of the risks, but their view is, once Iran crosses the finish
line, it's just going to be too late for anyone to do any more things, like North Korea. RAY
SUAREZ: David Ignatius, quick response? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, I think what bothers U.S.
officials and what bothers me as an analyst and columnist is that this is a role of the
dice. And the Israelis believe that the Iranian response would probably be limited, that their
own casualties would be limited, that the effect on the global economy wouldn't be severe,
that this would pass, as their strike on Iraq passed, as their strike in 2007 on Syria,
a Syrian nuclear reactor passed. But it's impossible to know. And a roll of the dice,
with the consequences this high for everyone concerned, bothers me. That's a risky way
to make statecraft. RAY SUAREZ: David Ignatius, David Makovsky, gentlemen, thank you both.
urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags country-region urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
City urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place RAY SUAREZ: I'm joined now by David
Ignatius of The Washington Post, who s with the defense secretary in Munich, Germany,
and David Makovsky, former executive editor of The Jerusalem Post Normal Microsoft Office
Word RAY SUAREZ: I'm joined now by David Ignatius of The Washington Post, who s with the defense
secretary in Munich, Germany, and David Makovsky, former executive editor of The Jerusalem Post
Title Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8