US News

Bibi, not Bam, has Iran plan

TEL AVIV, Israel — Here’s the nightmare scenario. Prime Minis ter Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel requests an urgent, private meeting with President Obama. At the White House, the two men sit alone and Netanyahu, looking grave, dispenses with pleasantries and gets to the point:

“Our intelligence services have determined that Iran is less than three months from making a nuclear bomb. Mr. President, as I have told you, no Israeli leader can let that happen because a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to our country.

“You previously asked that I not surprise you with any unilateral action. Therefore, I am here to inform you that we have decided to take military action against Iran. Based on weather conditions, our air force will carry out the raids in the next week.

“Furthermore, my military advisers all agree that we do not have sufficient conventional firepower to accomplish the mission. We are compelled to use tactical nuclear weapons. It is the only way we can be sure of success.

“Mr. President, I assure you that Israel fully appreciates the seriousness of this decision and the potential consequences. My Cabinet fully supports this decision. Opposition leaders also have been informed and they, too, agree this is the only responsible course.”

If the scenario sounds too cinematic and far-fetched, consider this. It was suggested to me by one of Israel’s top political insiders as the almost-certain outcome of the failed international efforts to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.

And his is not a lonely voice. The growing threat from Iran is Topic-A here, replacing the seemingly permanent conflict with Palestinians as the most pressing national issue. The Palestinian dispute drags on, but there is a sense of urgency about Iran’s nuke program.

Ehud Barak, the defense minister and the government official most trusted on military matters, told top defense officials Monday that “all options are on the table and we mean it,” according to a report in the newspaper Haaretz.

Unlike the Palestinian issue, political differences on Iran do not appear to be significant. Tzipi Livni, the head of the opposition party and a former foreign minister, used a speech on Israel-US relations to warn that time was running out for Obama to act.

“We understand that Iran is a threat to Israel,” she told the 10th annual Herzliya Conference on national security. “But it is not only our problem. It is also a problem for the US as the leader of the free world.”

That’s not to suggest there is an eagerness for a military strike, especially one with nuclear weapons that might ignite a wider war.

But the belief that Israel will have to act because no one else will is fueling a damn-the-critics determination. That beleaguered feeling is not exactly new here, but it is especially sharp now because of the one-sided UN report accusing the Israeli military of committing war crimes in Gaza last year.

Outrage over the report, combined with the failure of the United States to get a new round of Iran sanctions through the same United Nations and a refusal of Obama to do anything on his own, is creating the sense that Israel is being backed into a corner.

“What is happening is that Obama is forcing Israel to take action by not doing anything to stop Iran,” the political insider told me.

Amid growing certainty that Israel will act, speculation is shifting to what Obama would do. How would he respond to a Netanyahu heads-up that an attack was imminent?

After trying and failing to get Netanyahu to back off, we can assume he would consult his own national-security team and demand to know if Israeli intelligence was correct about Iran’s bomb-making capability.

He would notify world leaders and probably try to get China and Russia to lean on Iran to agree to a halt in enrichment. He might even warn Iran himself that the attack was coming unless it stopped enriching.

Above all, we can be certain he would try to buy time to avoid a showdown, which is exactly what he has been doing for the last year.

That, by the way, is the same feckless policy that has produced this nightmare scenario.

Harold hit ‘no trial here’ buzzer first

Now that Democrats who supported holding the 9/11 trial in New York are suddenly running for the hills, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and likely challenger Harold Ford Jr. both claim they voiced their opposition before their rival. I’m happy to referee because I have the facts.

On Jan. 26, I interviewed Ford and asked him his thoughts on the White House’s plan to hold the trial in lower Manhattan. Without hesitation he said he was opposed, citing the estimated cost of $200 million a year, and adding that a military tribunal was “the way to go.”

He also noted the recession and high unemployment and said spending that much money for a trial “made no sense.”

Even if Washington paid, he argued, the money could better be spent on tax cuts or helping people get jobs.

His comments appeared in this space the next day, Jan. 27, where I noted that his opposition put him at odds with Gillibrand, who supported the White House plan.

Perhaps coincidentally, also on the 27th, Mayor Bloomberg reversed his position and said he hoped the trial could be moved. He spoke in the morning and late in the afternoon, Gillibrand put out a statement noting the mayor’s change and saying “I am open to alternative locations.”

But she didn’t say she was opposed to holding the trial in New York. She also said that, if it were held here, she wanted to make sure Washington paid for it.

That’s hardly a strong opposition and certainly Ford beat her to the punch.

Not incidentally, the wishy-washy Washington-must-pay dodge was the same position her puppet master, Sen. Chuck Schumer, held then. Subsequently, Schumer declared he did not want the trial to be held anywhere in the state.

Can Gillibrand be far behind?

Gov bleeds money

Gov. Paterson preaches fiscal austerity, but he doesn’t always practice it. The latest case in point is his $6 million interest-free loan to St. Vincent’s Hospital so workers can get paid.

The hospital already has $700 million in debts and is losing up to $10 million a month, a spokesman said.

It’s burning cash so fast, it’s hard to see how the state money will make a difference.

The most likely outcome is that Paterson has just blown $6 million to help the hospital staff. If only he had the same compassion for taxpayers.

Bad for the Jews, good for a laugh

Asked at the Herzlyia Conference about why Israel gets so much negative coverage in the world press, communications honcho Eyal Arad drew laughs with his response. “Jews are news,” he said. “For the media, bad news is always good news. Thus, bad Jews are great news.”