McClatchy has a great three part series by Sheera Frenkel on Israel and its nuclear Iran scare campaign. There are at least three major points to take away from it:
- The systematic campaign to incite war on Iran started, more or less secretly, immediately after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf war.
- When in 2006 the U.S. was on the verge of defeat in Iraq the anti-Iran campaign was turned into a public one.
- Israel's plans are political, not military. Israel will not attack Iran but wants the U.S. to do the job.
But the piece is missing the strategic points why the nuclear issue is played up at all:
- The nuclear issue is not the real issue. The real issue is to achieve regional hegemony in the Middle East for the U.S. as much as for its junior partner Israel.
- That requires to destroy Iran's military and economic capacity (see Iraq) or regime change towards a U.S. friendly dictatorship.
Here are some excerpts from those pieces:
Part 1: Israel push on Iran included a steady dose of media leaks
Shimon Stein, a former Israeli ambassador to Germany and former head of arms control at the Foreign Ministry, said that Israel slowly developed its outreach and media efforts on Iran over more than two decades.
"We were diplomatically actively pursuing the Iranian issue for decades," he said. But the Israeli campaign moved into the public sphere five years ago when the Israelis decided they needed public opinion to also drive Iran policy. "Now it is a new ballgame," Stein said. "Now we added extra resources to mobilize our government and also world opinion."
…
As Israeli diplomats were working to convince governments of the Iranian nuclear threat, other organizations, such as the Washington-based Israel Project, were pressing the Israeli position with journalists and others.
…
Israeli officials also said it was no coincidence that a flurry of reports on Israel's imminent strike on Iran filled the press last fall just ahead of a report from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.Guzansky said the possible Israeli strike leaks to the media were "an important tool" for the government.
"It is psychological warfare. You leak to get the enemy or your friend to think X or Y," he said.
Part 2: After years, uncertainty still colors talk of Iran's nuclear capability
On the morning of May 9, 2006, Amos Yadlin, Israel's head of military intelligence, walked away from his parliamentary committee meeting with a sense of triumph. He knew he had successfully shifted Israel's national agenda.
…
Yadlin's statement that morning was calculated to garner the most attention possible, and it did. The next day, it was on the front pages of all of Israeli's daily newspapers. Within months, Israeli politicians would pick up the refrain and begin routinely referring to Iran as an "existential threat." It is an expression Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly fond of.Six years later, concern over that threat has reached a fever pitch, even as the date predicted for Iran's having built a nuclear weapon has slipped. Israeli officials who once talked about 2010 now talk about 2012. The existential threat line has moved from Israeli politicians to the United States, where it is repeated by nearly all the Republican presidential candidates as well as politicians of all stripe.
Part 3: Still no certainty on how, or if, Israel would strike Iran
On a drawing pad in his office, Alon, a senior Israeli military intelligence officer, sketches out the possible scenarios facing Israel and Iran.
…
"Maybe once a week someone calls me wanting to know the possibilities. How would we launch a military strike on Iran? What type of aircrafts would we use? What kind of bombs? Would we alert our allies in advance? Would it work?" he said. "Lately it has been more than once a week."
…
[But r]ather then a detailed military plan, Alon's drawing pad contained a series of flow charts on possible diplomatic and political initiatives that could be carried out as alternatives to a direct military confrontation with Iran.
…
Other military experts predict that the U.S. and other Western allies would lend their military might to an attack on Iran."In the end, Israel is the most nervous about doing this on its own. I would say, in fact, that it is impossible Israel will act without the support of the U.S.," said one official in the foreign minister's office.
…
"Israel is smarter then the rest. It saw the risk of Iran a long time ago and it has done its job and convinced the world to help," he said. "We are a small country but smart."He then added, as an afterthought, "Iran is a smart country, too, maybe that is the problem. They are both countries who think they are smarter then the rest."