Obama nears his nuclear moment

At the start of Barack Obama’s term, few moments better crystallised America’s change of face than his “New Day” video address to the Iranian people. Ending with a salutation in Farsi, Mr Obama offered Iran a new era of “co-operation”. It followed from the promise in his inaugural address to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

Unhappily, Tehran has ignored Mr Obama’s overtures. Not only is Iran thought to be within striking distance of how Israel defines its “zone of immunity” – the point at which Iranian nuclear weapons capability is irreversible – it has also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz. Nothing spells global recession faster than $200-a-barrel oil prices. And nothing will bring a colder sweat to Mr Obama’s electoral strategists than the thought of conflict with Iran.

Yet that is what many in Washington are now calling a “probability”. Some White House officials have referred to 2012 as the “year of Iran”. It was supposed to be dominated by the US economy. Might it instead be the moment Mr Obama takes that 3am phone call?

Many fear so. Some, including the New America Foundation’s Steve Clemons, talk about Mr Obama’s impending “Cuban missile crisis”. Much as Nikita Khrushchev misread John F. Kennedy as a pushover, and then tested his brinkmanship over Cuba, so Mr Obama is perceived by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, to be susceptible to intimidation.

Mr Netanyahu – Mr Obama’s least favourite foreign leader – visits Washington in two weeks. The build-up to his March 6 speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee has brought a flurry of leaks that Israel’s fuse is shortening by the day. The zone of impunity is looming, people say. “Everything, from Iran’s nuclear timetable to Israel’s red lines, points to some kind of Iran reckoning before November,” says Mr Clemons. “It does not mean war necessarily, but the status quo cannot hold for long.”

Even if, as signalled last week, Iran is sincere in wanting to hold talks with the west, which would supplant war speculation for a while, Mr Obama’s Republican opponents will keep it on the front burner. On Wednesday they hold the first presidential debate in three weeks. As in previous ones, commercial breaks are likely to air a spot calling on Mr Obama to remove the MEK – the Mujahideen e-Khalq, the armed Iranian opposition group – from the US list of foreign terrorist organisations.

The MEK is believed to have carried out the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists on Israel’s behalf. Its US front organisations have paid hefty speaking fees to dozens of prominent figures, from Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, to Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Many of the Republican candidates also support lifting the ban.

Then there is Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gaming mogul, whose $10m donation to a “super-political action committee” has kept Newt Gingrich in the Republican race. Mr Adelson, who is worth an estimated $22bn, has said he would fully support whoever was the Republican nominee. There are no limits on what Mr Adelson can spend to influence the general election. The Obama campaign is still informally hoping to raise $1bn – less than five per cent of Mr Adelson’s wealth.

In contrast to most Americans, who know of Mr Adelson through his super-Pac largesse, Israelis see him as one of Mr Netanyahu’s closest allies. Mr Adelson owns Israel Hayom (Israel Today), the influential daily newspaper, which is a strident Netanyahu supporter. “Netanyahu is a Republican,” says Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister. “Sheldon Adelson is his friend.”

Mr Adelson’s impact on the Republican debate has been direct. On most issues candidates have been driven by grassroots sentiment. On Iran, Mr Adelson leads a smaller electorate. It does not come in pastel shades. “If Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon,” says Mr Romney, who last week had what was described as a friendly meeting with Mr Adelson. “If you elect me Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Beyond the often surreal quality of the domestic US debate on Iran, Mr Obama has in reality assembled the toughest sanctions the country has ever faced, which will only tighten as the year progresses. In July the US and Europe will impose a full embargo on Iranian oil. More isolated than ever, Iran is showing growing signs of stress. Would now be the right time to consider war?

As is often the case with Israel, the true narrative may be very different to the one on the surface. “If Israel were planning a strike on Iran they wouldn’t be talking about it all the time,” says Moises Naim, a respected foreign policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Strikes are meant to be a surprise.”

When push comes to shove few can imagine Mr Obama ordering a strike on Iran, or giving the green light to Israel. The results could be disastrous and Mr Obama is not a reckless man. Yet it may suit his purposes for Iran to believe in that possibility. Politics also dictates that Mr Obama must avoid a fallout with Israel during an election. People point to an Iran conflict as a “black swan” that could derail Mr Obama’s re-election chances. But the real surprise may be how famously Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu appear to get along.

[email protected]

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.