Daniel W. Drezner

Bad analogy cleanup in the Israeli aisle!!

Back in the days when the Doha round was being negotiated, and it was dragging along interminably, inevitably some columnist would trot out a cliche like "time is running out" or "we’re in the red part of the red zone" or "the edge of the cliff" or some such line of alarmist rhetoric.  It got ...

Back in the days when the Doha round was being negotiated, and it was dragging along interminably, inevitably some columnist would trot out a cliche like "time is running out" or "we’re in the red part of the red zone" or "the edge of the cliff" or some such line of alarmist rhetoric.  It got to the point where the rhetoric itself invited mockery

I think the new "Doha" is Iran’s nuclear program.  I don’t mean to trivialize the concerns about that nuclear program, but it seems that every month like clockwork some Israeli official tells Jeffrey Goldberg writes or says something to the effect of "time is running out" for negotiations with Iran.  Benjamin Netanyahu in particular likes to say this again and again and again and again.  Today Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren joins in the rhetoric

Israel does itself no favors with this gambit.  Constantly warning that a window is closing and not having it close degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of the warnings.  This is particularly problematic if the Iranian threat actually is getting worse.  Haaretz‘s Barak Ravid reports that Western intelligence agencies have grown more concerned in recent months (hat tip Micah Zenko): 

New intelligence information obtained by Israel and four Western countries indicates that Iran has made greater progress on developing components for its nuclear weapons program than the West had previously realized, according to Western diplomats and Israeli officials who are closely involved in efforts to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

A Western diplomat who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss intelligence information said the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Israel agree on that assessment.

Not good — but here the history of Western intelligence agency estimates of Middle East WMD programs also undercuts the signal juuuuust a wee bit.  The Haaretz story also cites as evidence a Daily Telegraph report based on the information of "the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen al-Khalq."  Well, that’s one way to describe that group, although the U.S. State Department has a different designation

There’s something else in the Haaretz story that is worth discussing: 

Netanyahu told U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that an Israeli or American military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was likely to help topple the ayatollah regime, just as the 1976 Entebbe raid led to the defeat of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, according to a senior Israeli official.

The comment came when Romney asked Netanyahu during their July 29 meeting in Jerusalem whether he thinks an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities would unite Iranians, ultimately strengthening the regime, the official said.

In explaining why he thinks that would not happen, Netanyahu recounted what he said was Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s statement to him that the raid ultimately led to Amin’s downfall three years later.

"Ugandan President Museveni told me the Entebbe raid was a turning point in the effort to topple Idi Amin," the Israeli official quoted Netanyahu as saying. "He said the operation strengthened Amin’s rivals because it revealed how vulnerable his regime was."

Now I’ve seen bad analogies used on Iran before, but this is definitely a new one. 

Look, let’s put it this way — despite all of the factionalism within the Iranian regime, it’s still a hell of a lot stronger and more institutionalized than Idi Amin’s government was in Uganda.  Furthermore, the only way military action would cause the Iranian people to rise up against the current regime would be if the regime, after enduring years of crippling sanctions as well military attacks, turned around and acquiesced to the world’s demands.  That reversal would likely prompt the Iranian people to say, "That’s it?!  Then why the f**k did you put us through years of pain?" 

So, to sum up:  I don’t know what to believe anymore when Israelis talk about Iran — except that Iran is not Uganda. 

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the author of Theories of International Politics and Zombies. His latest book is The Toddler in Chief. Twitter: @dandrezner

Trending Now Sponsored Links by Taboola

By Taboola

More from Foreign Policy

By Taboola