Why this time no really means no

Micah Zenko argues in his 30 August 2009 editorial in the Los Angeles Times editorial "Israel has Iran in its sights" that if talks with Iran concerning their nuclear program that Israel will act unilaterally and that such unilateral action will not negatively affect the relationship between Israel and the United States.

One can see why Zenko would have written such an argument. Negotiations with Iran do not seem to be going well. Israel certainly does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. The argument for such talk generally follows the good cop bad cop script. Zenko tries to assert that if Iran does not reach a deal Israel will strike and there is nothing that the United States can do about it.

However, in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran, Obama would almost certainly not learn of the attack "from CNN." Israel would almost certainly have to travel through Iraqi airspace to launch an attack on Iran. If Israel can traverse Iraqi airspace without our knowledge, we have been wasting untold billions on defense spending.

The Good cop Bad cop routine has been run so long by America and Israel it is a farce that is no longer funny. If we allow Israel to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran, our relationship with Iraq will be disastrously ruptured. This will have real consequences in the form of the lives of American servicemen stationed in Iraq as well is in gas prices.

More importantly, Israel and the United States do not have similar interest regarding Iran. Israel desperately does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapons, not because it fears an almost inconceivable first strike situation, but because it fears that a nuclear deterrent to an Israeli attack would encourage Iran to be more supportive of Hezbollah and other organizations threatening Israel. The security of the United States would be very little altered by the Iran's obtaining a small nuclear arsenal. Iran's regime has proven itself obsessed with its own security. Which makes it very easy for the United States to depend on deterrence.

The problem with deterrence is it depends on the deterred party not being attacked. After the deterred party is attacked there is no reason not to counter attack. In this case America's security issue with Iran is much more closely related to its troops in bordering Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the stability of nuclear armed Pakistan.

If an attack by Israel destabilizes Iran. Militants from Iran will almost certainly flow into both Iraq and Afghanistan resulting in substantial deterioration of America's strategic position. This is a case where the interests of Israel and the United States really do differ. Israel should not ignore the interest of the United States in this matter. If it does, the relationship will truly never be the same.