, , ,

Segue o editorial do Haaretz de hoje. Alguns diriam que a sociedade israelense está dividida quanto a uma ação contra o Irã. Difícil dizer, pois não estou acompanhando o assunto tão de perto. Daqui de longe, o que parece é que a maioria dos israelenses não desejam a solução bélica para o caso, ou pelo menos estão bastante apreensivos quanto às medidas a serem tomadas por Tel Aviv diante das provocações de Teerã…

Não parece uma boa idéia atacar o Irã (ao menos neste momento). Provavelmente, a ação armada de Israel despertaria a ira (sem trocadilhos) de muitos muçulmanos pelo mundo, talvez de alguns governos… Isso sem falar do terrorismo… Enfim, as consequências podem ser as piores… para todos. Apesar de muito difícil, a alternativa do diálogo talvez seja a mais sensata. Isso se os iranianos estiverem dispostos a conversar…

Israel must listen to U.S. warnings against Iran attack

Haaretz Editorial, 20FEV2012

Does Iran truly intend to use nuclear technology for military purposes, or do its leaders recognize that the international response to such a development could jeopardize its very survival?

Fear ofIran’s nuclear program is pushingIsraelinto a dangerous corner. The state could find itself in a conflict of interest, or even on a collision course with the American administration just when it needsU.S.support more than ever before.

It’s enough to hear the warning of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, that a strike onIrancould be harmful toIsrael, and to see the stepped-up pace of visits here by seniorU.S.officials to realize just how anxiousWashingtonis about the prospect ofJerusalemdeciding to bombIran.

TheUnited Statesin particular, or the West in general, cannot be accused of ignoring the Iranian threat. The burden of sanctions imposed onIran, together withWashington’s frequent declarations that the military option is still on the table, demonstrate the administration’s concern overTehran’s nuclear program. The big question for the United States is not only about the effect of an Israeli attack against Iran on American interests in the region, but also about the efficacy of such a strike and concern about its potentially disastrous implications for Israel.

Israeland theUnited Statesare in agreement on both the dimension of the threat and the understanding thatIranhas not yet decided to obtain nuclear weapons. Not enough attention has been paid to the big question − why that decision has not been made − and there is no consensus on the answer.

DoesIrantruly intend to use nuclear technology for military purposes, or do its leaders recognize that the international response to such a development could jeopardize its very survival?

Dempsey believes, correctly, thatIranis a “rational actor” that considers the political implications of its actions. He concludes from this that the sanctions must be given a chance before trapping the region and the world in a war the final outcome of which is unknowable.

One can disagree with the American assessment that the sanctions are already having an effect, and one can find data that prove the opposite. But the fact that even inIsraelthere is disagreement on the issue indicates that there’s a chance the sanctions could prove effective.Israel, which succeeded in enlisting the Western countries to take action againstIran, must listen to the warnings coming out ofWashingtonand refrain, for now, from unilateral measures.