Who’s leading who into war with Iran?

In a column entitled "Obama is Pushing Israel Towards War," The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens argues that the Obama administration’s willingness to engage with Iran is leading Israel to believe that it will have to strike Iran on its own:

Such a strike may well be in Israel’s best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America’s supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn’t need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.

Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran’s disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver’s seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.

In a post entitled "Blaming America for Israel’s Next War," Matt Duss, at Think Progress, objects to the way Stephens frames the issue, arguing that he’s absolving Israel of responsibility if it decides to attack Iran:

Having argued that Israel will do what it believes to be necessary regardless of how small the chance of success, and of the likely extraordinarily negative consequences both for the U.S. and for the region as a whole, Stephens then insists that “it is an abdication of a superpower’s responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state.” Well, sure, if it were true. But superpowers aren’t required to precisely adopt the threat perspective of their smaller partners. It’s not “outsourcing” for the U.S. to differ with Israel’s analysis of the situation, nor is it an “abdication” for the U.S. to formulate policy according to that differing analysis, no matter how reckless the Netanyahu government may be.

Stephens disagrees with Obama on Iran and agrees with Netanyahu, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s just comically tendentious to suggest that it’s somehow irresponsible for the Obama administration not to follow the foreign policy of the Likud Party. President Obama believes that direct talks with Iran are an important tool for changing Iran’s behavior — a position that is shared by five former secretaries of state, as well as three-quarters of Americans. If Israel does choose to launch a preventive strike on Iran, it will bear the blame, but we’ll all share the consequences.