Last time I wrote here about the need to say less about Iran, and here I am today, talking about the same subject again. Well, do as I say, not as I ... never mind.

The recent meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exposed the gap between the two leaders on the hottest issue: Military action to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. While the two leaders fully agree that “all options are on the table,” the differences evolve around the priority of the military action over alternative tracks, and on the question of timing.

Assuming that a military action against Iran will generate a fierce, maybe worldwide violent Iranian reaction, it is worthwhile to reflect for a moment on the human ability to forecast the outcomes and repercussions of war. For with all the good intentions, the meticulous planning, and the gallant efforts of soldiers to execute the plans, wars have sometimes produced results that were dramatically different from those expected before the breakout of hostilities.

A case in point is the First World War. While it was sparked by the assassination of the Austrian Prince Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, in June 1914, the motives that led to it were much deeper. The Austro-Hungarian emperor strove to put an end to Serbia‘s ongoing intransigence. The German kaiser encouraged him to do so, hoping to improve his position vis-a-vis Great Britain and establish Germany as the major power in Europe. The Russian tsar, humiliated by his country’s impotence in previous crises in the Balkans, rushed to help his Serbian allies, hoping this time to succeed and to destabilize the Austro-Hungarian empire. France, followed by Great Britain, was sucked into the vortex to help allies, and so on.

By the way, once mobilization started, this was a one-way traffic to war. When in the summer of 1914 British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey tried to pre-empt the outbreak of the imminent war by initiating certain peace moves, the German kaiser asked his chief-of-staff, Gen. Helmut von Moltke Jr., to stop the mobilization. “Impossible,” said the general, explaining that the strict transportation plan didn‘t allow it. Military considerations, then, prevailed over the political judgment, and the rest is history.

Once Europe was turned to rubble and millions were buried, what happened to the hopes and the expectations of the main protagonists before the war? The mighty, centuries-old Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed like a house of cards. Germany, humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles, produced a Hitler who later brought much greater disasters. Russia fell to seven decades of communism, France was so weakened that it surrendered infamously in 1940, Great Britain lost a generation of fine men in the trenches, and so on and so forth.

I don’t know if President Obama is interested in military history. Yet speaking to AIPAC, he gave the pro-Israeli lobby a glimpse of his thinking on the issue of war. This didn‘t happen last week, but rather four years ago, when he was running for president. He was reflecting on the war in Iraq in which, in his words, the “U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly.” Nevertheless, continued then-Sen. Obama, “A consequence of the (Bush) administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran‘s strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril. These are not the signs of a well-paved road.”

Now read again the last sentences, and ask yourself seriously, even if you are not one of Obama’s most vocal supporters, whether he wasn‘t right on each and every point of his analysis. Planning, calculating and hoping before the war is one thing; getting the desired results is another.

This doesn’t mean that military action to stop Iran from becoming nuclear should be ruled out, whether by the United States or by Israel. However, every effort should be made to exhaust other means, before the bombers take off and the missiles are launched. For example, initiating stricter sanctions and strengthening international cooperation to impose them effectively. And if all efforts to stop a nuclear Iran fail, and a war becomes a must, then, quoting Obama, it should proceed on “a well-paved road.”


By Uri Dromi

McClatchy Newspapers

Uri Dromi writes about Israeli affairs for The Miami Herald. Readers may send him email at dromi@mishkenot.org.il. -- Ed.

(MCT Information Services)