The Iranian Nuclear Question: Hardly New

Iran has been appearing in the news rather frequently as of late. Even as most American voters seem to be most concerned about the economy, the subject of Iran is usually brought up in every 2012 Presidential debate. The topic of Iran and nuclear weapons is of course of great interest to Israel in particular, as relations between the two became very much hostile since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

A book could be written on the whole affair, even if its just to cover a fraction of the time since 1979. Indeed, Herb Keinon's article in The Jerusalem Post is titled 'Planning underway for other 'options' on Iran' but covers a wide range of topics, including the Iron Dome anti-missile system, American-Egyptian relations and the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement. Some of these, surprisingly enough, is related to Israel's question on what to do, if anything, about Iran.

The Post tries to be descriptive and objective as possible, explaining their headline with the fact that US Ambassador Dan Shapiro stated in Jerusalem that all options are "on the table" and that plans are being made to make sure that said options can be pulled off. Israeli President Shimon Peres also spoke, defending the right and capability of Israel to defend itself "against any threat." Peres also rebutted the claim made by The Haaretz that he would tell President Barack Obama that Israel should not attack Iran.

Shapiro discussed some of the options that were already being practiced by the US such as economic sanctions. Interestingly enough, Shapiro downplayed the supposed disconnect between the Obama administration and Israel, saying that “those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk. Much of what is written on this topic is pure speculation and much of it is wrong.”

The article continues to talk about other subjects Shapiro mentions such as the Iron Dome anti-missile system. The connection is not made clear asides from Shapiro talking about all of this at the same event. However, it is related in that the Iron Dome shoots rockets shot from Gaza suspected to be fired from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah; the two groups are funded by Iran.

The article continues with more statements from Shapiro. An emphasis on existing contracts was made by Shapiro, referencing Egyptian interests. As a last note, Shapiro stated that the American government, unsurprisingly, does not feel optimistic regarding the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement.

It's possible that The Post may have cherry picked from Shapiro's speech, but it seems to be the most informative out of coverage from other outlets such as Tel Aviv's Yedioth Ahronoth. The headline is misleading in that the article is more about Shapiro's speech rather than a specific part of it covering Iran. This could be because an American ambassador stating that "all options are on the table" is a significant enough event to warrant the title of the headline. Most other news sources don't even bother reporting on the rest of Shapiro's statements.

The whole thing has a sense of deja vu, as a 2009 article in the New York Daily News explains in its headline, "Israeli Defense Minister Barak to U.S.: 'No option' off table on Iran." The real question that should be asked is not wither or not Israel has the right to defend itself, but rather, if it should engage in a preemptive strike. Other questions may follow, such as the issue of American involvement in such a strike. So far, Israel has decided to refrain from a strike against Iran.