To Bomb or Not to Bomb

Jerusalem 17.01.12 – The frightening threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is becoming more and more clear to the world. Here in Israel, we fear being blown up by a nuclear bomb. So do those around us. For example, the winds are variable but mostly blow from Israel down to Egypt.

     But that’s our deep-seated fear. Greater consciousness has spread. A nuclear explosion at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean is a chilling thought for the European nations. A nuclear power dominating the Arab world and the oil rich Persian Gulf would be a disaster for all. America and the Europeans are taking stronger action with sanctions. China and Russia, who may in the end play the major role in this affair, are having deeper thoughts.

     In Israel, nobody understands what is happening in Syria, in Egypt, in the other parts of the Arab world. Nobody can predict the future in Iran. It therefore seems appropriate to us that our leaders go out to the world with a message of warning and  appeal for serious action.

    The columnist Roger Cohen (IHT 17.01.12) appears to reduce all this to fairly simple propositions. He writes an article about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the need for him to be better friends with President Obama. Therefore, Netanyahu should not attack Iran this spring or summer, mainly because it would interfere with Presidential campaigning.

     He conjectures that if Israel strikes before the US election Obama would be “stymied.” “He would be in no position to express anger given the clout of the pro-Israel lobby, the important Jewish vote in Florida and the fulsome support any Israeli bombing would get from the Republican contender – probably Mitt Romney.” So Cohen writes.

     And he goes on to contend that if re-elected Obama would then be able to be angry with Israel so relations would turn bad. So, “Don’t do it, Bibi” says the headline on Cohen’s article.

     Surely, if Israel  bombed Iran’s nuclear set-up before November, everything would be swept aside. The President of the United States would have to put on his Commander-in-Chief hat and would be very busy coping with a new and dangerous situation, distracting him from his campaign.

     If we continued with this ridiculous line of argument, we could now argue that it would be a good idea to strike at Iran to help the Republican candidate and thus ensure better relations with the U.S.

     Let us return to reality. The Israeli position, when it comes down to it, is the same as that of America – the option of attack in still on the table – the last resort. In the meantime, maximum pressure must be exerted. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to the world.

     As we know President Obama has changed the emphasis on America’s foreign policy, moving from the Middle East to the Pacific. Apparently, he is more interested in the future of a number of tiny uninhabited islands in the South China Sea than in the tumultuous events in the Middle East. Naturally, this makes the Israeli leadership anxious.

     Roger Cohen has set his sights on Mr Netanyahu. He is a hawk, with a taste for the dramatic, Cohen says. Every Israeli prime minister becomes a hawk and will become a hawk when he sees his nation threatened with annihilation. That is precisely the kind of language that the Iranians and others use.

     We should not forget that Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Mr Netanyahu is not the Commander in Chief. Major decisions to go to war are considered with great pain by the cabinet. Mr Netanyahu is a trained army officer who must consult with advisers, Defence Minister, Chief of Staff and expert agencies. No one in Israel underestimates the implications of a decision to attack Iran.

    Mr Cohen lists all kinds of bad results for Israel if it attacks – Iran infuriated, Syria cemented in, radicalizes the Arab world, ignites Hezbollah, boosts Hamas, endangers US troops etc etc. They all seem to be much the same reasons as concerned Israel before they went into previous attacks. Israelis will remember previous occasions when America pressured Israel not to make pre-emptive attacks.

    It’s not enough to depict Mr Netanyahu as one who should “take his finger off the Iranian trigger.” It’s this kind of emotional guff which doesn’t help in this, probably the most fearful problem to face the world in decades.   

    Mr Cohen leaves us totally confused with his last words. Netanyahu should “realize Israel’s fate hinges more on Ramallah than Tehran.” Really?