When Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez landed in Mexico in 1519 intent on conquest, legend has it that he burned his boats to foreclose the option of retreat. In the past few days, contemplating Iran’s nuclear program, Barack Obama has been doing something similar.
When Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez landed in Mexico in 1519 intent on conquest, legend has it that he burned his boats to foreclose the option of retreat. In the past few days, contemplating Iran’s nuclear program, Barack Obama has been doing something similar.
Last week, the president told an interviewer that “when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” He stipulated that military options are on the table. On the need to prevent an Iranian nuclear arsenal, he stressed, “I’m not saying this is something we’d like to solve. I’m saying this is something we have to solve.”
In his speech Sunday before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president was equally definitive. “I do not have a policy of containment,” he avowed. “I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He went on to say, “I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”
On Monday the president said he hopes economic sanctions against Iran, coupled with diplomacy, will resolve the situation. But in welcoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, Obama re-emphasized his Sunday remarks by stating that “the United States will always have Israel’s back.”
Obama has made statements like these in the past, but he has never been so conspicuously uncompromising and categorical. Before, it was possible to surmise that Obama was not truly serious about the military option — that he would use every means short of bombers and missiles to stop the Iranian program, and then, if those failed, make the best of a bad situation.
But no more. He has flatly promised to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — not to try, not to do everything humanly possible, but to stop it, period. In this test, there is no grading on the curve. Obama will either succeed in averting this dread prospect, or he will fail.
This is clearly a turning point in the long standoff. By ostentatiously closing off his exits, the president is endeavoring to leave two parties — Iran and Israel — with absolutely no doubts about his resolve.
He intends to dispel any hope the Tehran regime may harbor that it can proceed toward nukes without war. His message: You don’t have a choice between having and not having the bomb. Your only choice is to stop building on your own or let us stop you.
As for Israel, Obama knows that the Israelis feel more urgency than he does. Why? Because the military resources Israel can deploy against Iran are far less than those available to the United States.
As a result, the Israeli government would have to take action relatively soon or else forfeit the chance to knock out the Iranian threat on its own. Netanyahu emphasized to Obama on Monday that “Israel must reserve the right to defend itself.”
Obama doesn’t disagree but wants Israel to delay any attack. That would buy time for the current regime of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure to force Iran’s retreat. To win Israel’s forbearance, though, he has to convince Netanyahu that if that effort fails, the U.S. will do what Israel refrained from doing.
Israel will have to decide if and when to strike. Iran will have to decide whether to pursue nuclear bombs.
And Obama? He didn’t leave himself much to decide. He didn’t intend to.