Reports of preparations for renewed strikes on Iran, days before Israel votes, should set off red flags for voters.
A report in the Financial Times should set off all the red flags in Israel’s defence establishment and among the public. According to the report, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had instructed the military to plan a major new offensive against Iran for early October but was blocked due to the opposition of US President Donald Trump.
It is hard to ignore the possibility that Netanyahu wishes to resume the war before next Tuesday’s election, or immediately after it, in a manner that may affect the results or enable him to form a unity government even if his Likud party has a poor outcome in the election.
This must be stated clearly: according to publicly available information and the repeated claims of defence officials, there is no evidence of a development in Iran’s nuclear weapons or missile programs that would necessitate an immediate Israeli attack. Iran continues to build up its forces and constitutes a significant threat, but this does not mean that any timing is suitable for launching a new offensive, certainly not during the most sensitive weeks of Israel’s democratic process.
Furthermore, following two wars with Iran, it should be asked what a third one might accomplish that its predecessors did not. Even if Israel manages to inflict heavy damage on Iran’s infrastructure, that will not guarantee that it can achieve its strategic goals.
On the other hand, the cost could be high: harm to the home front, the disruption of economic activity in Israel, an extensive mobilisation of reservists and damage to infrastructure. Even if Israel is planning a short campaign, Iran will have a decisive influence on how it unfolds, and there is no way to guarantee when and how it ends.
IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, the heads of the defence establishment, the attorney general and everyone who is involved in the decision-making process have a special responsibility. Their role is not only to present operational plans, but to demand a well-grounded, security-based justification for their execution, to examine alternatives and to clarify the costs and risks of any operation.
Obviously, in the event of a clear and present danger that must be confronted immediately, Israel must defend itself. But in the absence of such a threat, there is no justification for jeopardising the democratic process and the security of Israelis with a military operation of dubious strategic value.
An election is not a security obstacle that must be bypassed; it is a key element of Israel’s security and resilience. Launching an offensive at this time, without a clear military need, will cast a heavy shadow on the decision-making process and raise concerns about a conflation of political interests and professional considerations. Israel cannot afford another war without knowing whether it is necessary, what it is supposed to achieve and how it can be ended.
Republished from Haaretz