A recent poll found that sixty-six percent of Israeli Jews support military action against Iran. Moreover, among those supporting military action, seventy-five percent said that they would not change their minds if the United States opposed an Israeli strike. Strategically, this could have a number of important implications.
First, broad popular support within Israel for a strike on Iran reaffirms Israel’s credibility, as Jerusalem has the public mandate for following through on any threat it might make regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Remember: public opinion is a major constraint on democratic governments’ foreign policies, and achieving broad public support is particularly important when democracies go to war. This is especially true in Israel, where virtually every citizen serves in the army and will therefore bear the burden — directly or indirectly — of any military action.
With this bolstered credibility, however, comes responsibility. Indeed, if Israeli leaders speak too liberally of possible Israeli action against Iran and then fail to deliver, the credibility of Israel’s threat will be significantly undermined. For this reason, Israeli leaders should speak in broad terms regarding military “options” of indefinite time frames, which would preserve the threat for as long as necessary. Moreover, they should avoid statements regarding military “action,” since failure to act after a certain time would falsify the threat.
Second, a critical mass of Israelis (49.5% of those polled) supporting military action against Iran even without U.S. permission suggests that the Obama administration might not be able to prevent Israel from striking. Here, the “might” is strategically crucial: this unpredictability gives Israel the upper hand vis-à-vis Iran, as Tehran loses its ability to manipulate risks in an uncertain environment (h/t Thomas Schelling). This strengthens Obama’s bargaining position in his engagement with Iran: if negotiations fail, Obama can say — with good reason — that he can’t fully control what Israel might do. This means that the pressure will be squarely on Iran to deal in good faith and, most importantly, expediently.
Of course, one key question remains open: does Obama know how to leverage Israeli hawkishness — now backed by strong popular support within Israel — to his strategic advantage vis-à-vis Iran?
