What is behind the media leaks of Israeli talk about the possibility of launching a military strike against Iran and its nuclear program? In these reports, the Israelis are relying on the notion that there is increasing evidence that this program has a military aspect, contrary to Iran's claim that it is for peaceful, civilian purposes. It is impossible to imagine that the "preparation," or domestic Israeli discussion about launching a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, could take place without receiving American approval for such a move, or without actual American participation in such a strike. This is because Israel is unable to absorb the consequences of military action against Tehran on its own; it certainly requires US military intervention in confronting the Iranian responses to such an attack, throughout the region, especially in the Gulf. Israel also requires an air bridge to secure the ammunition, missiles and bombs, especially the smart bombs, to confront the responses in the Levant, which Tehran will ignite as part of its defense, with Syria and Lebanon serving as arenas for such a move. However, American involvement in such a war is unlikely. At least, these are the indications, based on the current mentality of the White House, if we rely on the leaks of political and diplomatic discussions in Washington, or the appraisals of think thanks that are close to the US administration, to varying degrees. When they put forward this view, these circles rely on the argument that Washington cannot allow Israel to undertake an adventure such as this, in light of America's economic and military difficulties in Afghanistan and Iraq, and political difficulties in confronting the international solidarity with the Palestinian Authority's request for membership as a state in the United Nations. Moreover, there are medium- and long-term repercussions from the Arab Spring when it comes to the stance on Israel on the part of a number of Arab countries whose former regimes were pliable to Washington's demands, to the benefit of Tel Aviv. One argument is valid with regard to Washington's readiness to see the military option used against Iran, in cooperation with Israel. America's withdrawal of troops from Iraq, which President Barack Obama has said will be complete at the beginning of next year, could free US troops from the possibility of being targeted by Iran next door, through its allies in Iraq. This withdrawal means that using the military option against Iran would be made easier. Around two weeks ago, the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Ghadanfar Roknabadi, said it was unlikely that Washington would resort to the military option, because US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were hostages to the ability of Tehran and the "resistances" in the region to target American soldiers. "We will begin to be worried when these troops leave the region," the ambassador said, meaning that Tehran is taking into consideration the idea that the American withdrawal from the region will facilitate Washington's ability to move militarily against Iran. However, even this argument can be countered. In addition to America's current economic difficulties, which prevent it from taking on the added financial costs of any new war, and the catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East, the withdrawal from Iraq is insufficient to spare the Americans losses, since there are US troops in a number of Gulf countries, and in Afghanistan. Moreover, there is also the argument that views the American withdrawal from Iraq as part of a decline in Washington's policy in the region, and not an offensive. This withdrawal, the argument goes, will lead in practical terms to an acknowledgment of Tehran's influence in Iraq, and movement by Iran in the direction of cementing its control of the rules of the game in Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. Therefore, Washington and Israel will lean toward negotiating with the Iranian leadership over conditions in the region, rather than escalating their rivalry with the Islamic Republic. These expectations might be tested in the coming months and end up resembling the expectations about the future of Syria. If this happens, then the victory of the argument that the military option against Iran is unlikely will win out, raising questions about Israel's game of beating the war drum. The government of Benjamin Netanyahu, like that of western countries, might need to flee from their domestic economic difficulties, which have sparked unprecedented protest movements. Israel is now trying to break the international isolation that has begun to target the Jewish state, amid the growing international recognition of a Palestinian state. Taking the discussion of striking Iran out in the open diverts attention from the failure by extremists in Israel to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the consequences of this for Israel, and even its ally America. Talking about war has other uses besides war.
