Schlaglicht Israel Nr. 03/10 Aktuelles aus israelischen Tageszeitungen 09.- 22. Februar 2010 1. Iran Anlässlich des 31. Jahrestags der Islamischen Revolution verkündete der iranische Präsident Mahmoud Ahamadinejad, dass es dem Iran gelun­gen sei, Uran auf 20 Prozent anzureichern. Wenige Tage zuvor hatte Außenminister Mottaki im Rahmen der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz die westlichen Hoffnungen enttäuscht und auf Teherans Recht zur Urananreicherung bestanden. Einem Kompromiss­vorschlag stimmte er nicht zu. Die USA drängen nun auf harte Sanktionen und bemühen sich um internationale Unterstützung. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auch der Israel-Besuch des Chefs des amerikanischen Generalstabs zu verstehen: Michael Mullen hatte bei einer Presse­konferenz und in Gesprächen mit israelischen Regierungsmitgliedern betont, dass ein Angriff auf den Iran im Moment unerwünscht sei. Dementsprechend haben führende Politiker in Israel in den letzten Wochen von Drohungen gegen den Iran abgesehen und verstärkt nach Sanktionen verlangt. A friendly warning “Israel should heed the friendly warning it received from the Obama administration, which opposes a preemptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. […] Both Israeli and Iranian leaders have escalated the threats they have been exchanging over the past few weeks.[…] In these circumstances, the U.S. administration was right to send its senior officials to the Middle East in an attempt to calm both Israel and the Arab nations who are afraid of the Iranian nuclear threat.[…] Israel is required to give Obama a chance, for one simple reason: Israel will need full American support for any actions it may decide to take against the Iranian threat.[…] No other country would or could aid Israel, and uncoordinated Israeli action would justifiably arouse U.S. anger, since it would endanger America's vital interests in the region.” HAA 16.02.10 A new approach to Iran “Once it achieves nuclear capability[…] Iran is also limited. The United States, Britain and France(and other countries) could warn Iran that launching a missile – any missile(since it can be assumed to be a WMD) – against a non-Iranian target would result in a devastating response, perhaps the annihilation of Iran, by a combined international force.[…] The advantage of such a mechanism is that it virtually locks in all participants and everyone knows the rules. Iran's success up to now has been due to the lack of rules, clear red lines and meaningful consequences. The responsibility for prudence and self-preservation as well as the system itself, therefore, is incumbent on every player. And once armed, there is no withdrawal.[…] The premise of this approach is that having‘The Bomb’ would include accountability for its use. A step back from confrontation, it is not appeasement or conciliatory. It sends a message of resolve that the initial use of WMD, without provocation, will trigger a devastating response by the international community.” Moshe Dann, JED 17.02.10 At least we tried “The involvement with sanctions[…] deflects from the primary problem- the absence of an American strategy for tough negotiations with Iran. Even more serious, however, is that there are worrying signs that the Obama administration is beginning to resign itself[…] to recognition that the Islamic republic could ultimately build a nuclear bomb. When you begin to reconcile with a specific reality, you stop trying to change it. And then we hear more about the need to deter and contain Iran than about stopping it.[…] 1