Delivered, Deployed, Defending

The IAEA has finally thrown in the towel on Iran’s nuclear project – admitting that it has no answers to its questions, no idea where the uranium went and no hope of cooperation from the Mullahs. At the same time, the UN Security Council – hostage to Russia and China, as well as Europe’s energy requirements – cannot agree on a new set of sanctions. The threat of a nuclear Iran (if it solves its technological problems) terrifies Arab states from the Gulf through Saudi Arabia, to Lebanon and Egypt in a way Israel’s presumed nuclear capability never did.

The IAEA has finally thrown in the towel on Iran’s nuclear project – admitting that it has no answers to its questions, no idea where the uranium went and no hope of cooperation from the Mullahs. At the same time, the UN Security Council – hostage to Russia and China, as well as Europe’s energy requirements – cannot agree on a new set of sanctions. The threat of a nuclear Iran (if it solves its technological problems) terrifies Arab states from the Gulf through Saudi Arabia, to Lebanon and Egypt in a way Israel’s presumed nuclear capability never did.

This is the world’s problem, but Israel – for obvious reasons – takes the threat much more personally.

So last week’s arrival in Israel of the Raytheon-produced X-Band Radar and its 120-man American operating team was met with both a sigh of relief and a frisson of concern. The radar was previously in Japan, protecting again a possible launch from North Korea. According to Ha’aretz, “The new radar will give Israel added minutes to respond to a missile launch, compared with the systems it currently uses. Assisted by data sent from American satellites, the system can detect Iranian missiles shortly after they are launched. A link with the Arrow missile system makes it possible to launch a defensive missile, and increases the chance of intercepting the incoming missile while giving the home front more time to respond.”

It is the first time American military personnel have been stationed in Israel in other than emergency circumstances. We, who believe strongly that Israel should be responsible for defending itself, with American aid and equipment when appropriate, have often argued against the use of American military personnel to reduce risks Israel has considered assuming for “peace.” When Israel conceived of giving the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a “peace treaty,” but bolstering its defensive position with U.S. troops – JINSA objected. JINSA likewise opposes consideration of “foreign forces” including NATO troops to bridge some possible “gaps” in an Israeli-Palestinian accord requiring that Israel reduce or remove its security presence in Judea and Samaria.

We would never presume to tell an Israeli government what risks are appropriate for Israel to take in pursuit of peace, but we absolutely believe that the government of Israel should assume whatever risks attend decisions to voluntarily weaken itself. The corollary is that Israel should not subjugate its decision making to the United States.

This, however, is different. While American military personnel in Israel do, indeed, constrain Israeli freedom of action as regards Iran, the risks that Iran poses to Israel are beyond the current ability of the government of Israel to assume alone. We are grateful then, to the U.S. government – and Rep. Mark Kirk, who conceived of and promoted this option – for sending precious resources, personnel as well as equipment, to work with Israel to ensure its security in the face of a growing threat.