Editorial: Netanyahu only stokes Mideast tension

Timing is everything in life, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could hardly have chosen a worse occasion to renew his public agitation for the United States to lay down a "red line" that Iran and its nuclear program cannot cross.

With American diplomatic outposts under attack all over the Islamic world, this isn't the moment to inflame passions in the Middle East. Yet Netanyahu, an old friend of Mitt Romney, chose Sunday's TV talk shows to call once again for President Barack Obama to throw down the gauntlet even while denying any desire to influence the U.S. election.

There's no denying that Israel has reason for worry. In a region known for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stood out for his vocal dedication to Israel's destruction. He's called for the country to be wiped off the map and described the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust as a myth.

Although Netanyahu's military would seem to have ample nuclear firepower of its own to deter Iran from using any atomic weapon it may develop, Israel's long-term prospects could be dimmed by life under the cloud of possible nuclear attack by a hostile nearby nation.

Indeed, the world would be better off without a nuclear Iran. Having nuclear weapons could increase Iran's influence in the Middle East. And in general, the more widespread these weapons become, the more likely they are to be used, particularly if they find their way into the hands of jihadists or other rogue operators who aren't as easily deterred as nations usually are.

Unfortunately, however, Netanyahu's public demands on Obama and his continued saber-rattling toward Iran are counterproductive. An Iran that feels threatened -- it's already had to cope with attacks on its nuclear program's computers and scientists -- may only become more determined to develop a nuclear deterrent. And Netanyahu's rhetoric is more likely to antagonize global opinion than secure Israel's safety.

The very idea that Iran's nuclear program can be stopped by airstrikes is dubious at best. Such strikes would be difficult to execute, would further alienate many volatile Islamic nations, and might well persuade Iran -- and other countries -- to redouble nuclear efforts. Politically, it would be hard for Iran to withstand such attacks without violent retaliation, possibly including an effort to choke off oil supplies at the Strait of Hormuz. Israel and, by extension, the United States would likely face worldwide condemnation. Meanwhile, the intelligence isn't even clear that Iran has decided to go beyond nuclear capability to the building of nuclear bombs.

Obama has already rebuffed Netanyahu's call for a clear red line -- a line possibly based on the quantity of nuclear material Iran has amassed -- while saying that all options are on the table. Declaring a red line publicly would only limit Washington's flexibility and, potentially, commit the United States to a dangerous course of action.

Domestic political considerations may be motivating Israel's leader to demand more, but in this country it comes across as foolhardy, if not arrogant. Iran's nuclear project presents a tough problem. Netanyahu isn't making a solution any easier.