Good friends urge caution
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is nothing if not a staunch friend of Israel. As such, his Conservative government has the right to speak frankly when the need arises. And to his credit that’s just what Harper did during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Canada.
As expected, Harper voiced support for Israel’s right to defend itself and duly noted “the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran.” He could have left it at that. Certainly Netanyahu would have pocketed that as a gain on his way to the White House, where he hoped to nudge U.S. President Barack Obama closer to a military strike on Iran’s worrisome nuclear facilities. But Harper rightly seized the occasion to press for restraint, cautioning against a rush to war.
“We want to see a peaceful resolution of this issue,” Harper told Netanyahu. “And we want to see every action taken to get a peaceful resolution of the situation.” Neither Harper nor Obama shares Netanyahu’s sense of urgency about the need for a military strike. “There is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue,” Obama insisted on Monday.
This seemingly co-ordinated counsel of restraint is good advice from good friends. The last thing the volatile Mideast needs is a premature Israeli attack that would let Tehran’s leaders portray themselves as victims, drive up the price of oil, expose Israelis to retaliation and even spark a regional war. It’s also the last thing Obama needs in a presidential election year.
Despite calls to arms from Israeli hawks, few Israelis share Netanyahu’s enthusiasm for forcing the issue, a recent Dahaf Institute poll found. Barely 19 per cent favour a unilateral strike.
Netanyahu came to Ottawa and Washington reportedly hoping to firm up support for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and to exact a pledge that the U.S. will act decisively to prevent Iran not only from developing a nuclear arsenal but even from acquiring the capability to do so. If so, he failed to narrow the gap.
Israel’s key allies have reason to hope that United Nations and other sanctions are having the desired effect. Iran’s leaders are unpopular and isolated, increasingly forsaken even by allies such as Russia and China. Iranians are paying a steep economic price for this nuclear folly. The regime faces what Obama calls “even more crippling” sanctions this year, unless it voluntarily agrees to forsake nuclear weapons as other rogue nations have been persuaded to do. That will compound the pressure.
While Washington aims not merely to “contain” a nuclear-armed Iran (as some Israelis fear), but to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” in the first place, Obama said “there is too much loose talk of war” at this stage. “Now is not the time for bluster,” he told American Jewish leaders. “Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in.” He’s right. Even U.S. officials aren’t yet persuaded that Iran’s leaders have made the fateful decision to build a bomb.
Given that uncertainty, the mutually reinforcing calls for restraint from Washington and Ottawa on a volatile international issue are good to hear. But Iran’s leaders should not misread it for weakness.
They insist their nuclear program is for civilian energy and medical research. If so, they should be willing to “stop the clock,” limit uranium enrichment to levels below what’s needed for weapons, and to accept rigorous inspection. That’s no more than Canada and other advanced nuclear-capable countries have done. And they should do so soon.