Israel's Nuclear Umbrella :: Herbert I. London

Based on Vice President elect Joseph Biden’s comments to Israeli officials and back channel discussions with the Obama team, the new administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran. Presumably any attack on Israel will be followed by a devastating U.S. attack against Iran.

Needless to say, how this will actually play out is anyone’s guess, but the presumption is that the guarantee makes deterrence increasingly robust. It is the Obama team’s response to the alternatives of “doing nothing” or the military option.

In effect it is an admission that Iran will most likely acquire nuclear weapons and despite claims that this is unacceptable, the nuclear guarantee suggests we will do nothing to prevent this development. While this decision is less belligerent than the so-called military option, it can not allay Israeli fears.

After all, as one Israeli official noted, “What kind of credibility would this guarantee have when Iran is nuclear capable?” If Iran will not acquiesce without this weapon of mass destruction, why should it acquiesce with this weapon?

Moreover, the chatter about this deterrent reinforces the Iranian position that the West is unprepared to thwart nuclear weapons development.

Perhaps the most curious feature of this policy is attempting to convince a resident of Pierre, South Dakota that he should be embroiled in a nuclear war if Haifa is attacked. The obvious point is that an unthinkable act, might not lead to an unthinkable retaliation.

Suppose you can’t be sure where the bomb came from. Suppose as well, it is a suitcase bomb assembled and set off by a terrorist organization without a home. And suppose further that China and Russia oppose any retaliation at the U.N. Security Council. What would President Obama risk? Would he be willing to kill millions of innocent people to stand behind his pledge?

From the Israeli standpoint, the assurance is meaningless. If deterrence works at all with a theological state intent on Armageddon, it is the independent Israeli nuclear force that might make a difference, not a pledge from the United States. Moreover, to the extent the Obama administration insinuates itself directly into Israeli security matters is the extent to which independent Israeli action is diminished.

Ultimately policy options are limited, as the Bush administration realized. If a regime change is not in the offing or a very tough embargo defying Russian and Chinese sentiments is not enacted, the military option is the only real policy alternative that is left. And every signal from the Obama team is that this option will not be entertained.

Hence an American nuclear umbrella is nothing more than a ploy to appear tough and discourage the mullahs intent on weapons acquisition. However, it is so shallow in scope that even the most gullible Persian will see right through it. This is less a policy and more a public relations gambit.

Should this be the Obama foreign policy perspective, “the tests” will come fast and furiously. Deterrence works when claims are credible. When they enter the realm of the imaginary, they are laughable and undermine future options. A nuclear umbrella as a strategy to forestall an Iranian preemptive strike belongs right next to the Maginot Line in the annals of misguided defensive strategies.

Related Topics: Middle East receive the latest by email: subscribe to herbert i. london's free mailing list