An Iran attack is the toughest question Israel faced since 1948

[Shaktimaan]

Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

By Ari Shavit

Those who oppose an attack on Iran must honestly address 10 critical questions.

Can 21st century Israelis continue to live their lives with the shadow of a Shi'ite mushroom cloud hovering above their heads? Will Israel be able to withstand the endless conventional wars that will break out on its borders once Iran goes nuclear? Will Israel be able to handle a nuclear, wild and radical Middle East? Will Israel survive when the United States starts ignoring it because it will be forced into appeasing the rising nuclear power, Iran? Will Israel be able to survive the diplomatic isolation that will be its lot when a nuclear Iran takes control of the Persian Gulf and dictates the price of oil to the world? Will Dimona be enough to stand up to the ensuing nuclearization of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt? Will Dimona address the risk of nuclear terror? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which the Iranian nukes put an end to peace or the hope of peace? Will Israel be able to withstand a situation in which a nuclear Iran forces it to live by the sword, day in and day out, with a cruelty it has never known before? Are we prepared to take the one-in-a-hundred chance that a nuclear bomb will explode over Tel Aviv?

The picture looks gloomy indeed. Israel's policy of prevention has gained some time, but has failed. The international policy of appeasement created an illusion and collapsed. The sanctions imposed were too little, too late, and won't likely stop Iran in time.

Nor did the recent meetings in Washington go well. There is no strategic cooperation between Israel and the United States. There is no trust between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The U.S. president did not give the Israeli prime minister any guarantees that immediately after the November elections he will stop Iran at any price.

In short, the world that was meant to save the Jewish state from the terrible dilemma it faces, failed to do so. It's true, there could still be a miracle. Maybe Iran will blink at the last minute. Maybe the United States will sober up at the edge of the abyss. But in March 2012 the feeling in Jerusalem is that Israel is utterly alone. And we are getting closer to the moment of truth.

We cannot err. We absolutely, positively cannot make a mistake. There are 10 questions on one side, and 10 questions on the other. The 21st question is: Attack, or don't attack?

When confronting this existential question, there is no right or left, no bad guys or good guys, and no warmongers or pacifists. When facing this existential question, we cannot be critical or sloppy and we cannot think dogmatically. Standing at the last crossroad, the debate we conduct with ourselves has to be deep, wise, responsible, clear, and level-headed.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-iran-attack-is-the-toughest-question-israel-faced-since-1948-1.418747

[Owlet]

1. "Can 21st century Israelis continue to live their lives with the shadow of a Shi'ite mushroom cloud

hovering above their heads?"

20th Century Americans and Europeans somehow managed to continue to lead their lives with a much more serious threat from the Soviet Union. The unstated assumption of the article is that Iran will stage a nuclear attack on Israel as soon as it is capable of doing so. There is not a whole lot of evidence to support this. Sure, it's not a great thing that another country should have the bomb, but there's enough history to show that mere possession doesn't mean use of the weapon.

What about this argument: if Israeli leaders seriously believe that their country faces an existential threat from Iran, then why fool around with half-measures? Launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Tehran. End of problem.

[aranthus]

2. You're incorrect about the assumption of the article.

It does not assume that Iran will attack if it gets the bomb (though it does assume a significant probability of that happening). What it assumes is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable even if it does not fire a nuclear weapon. That, I believe, is the assumption of most clear thinkers in most of the world's capitals. That is why many of the arab states are concerned. Part of that assumption is based on the belief that the religiously based fanatics who rule Iran are of a different kind than the religiously based fanatics who ruled the Soviet Union. The Soviets were interested in creating their Heaven on Earth. The Mullahs may be more interested in creating Armageddon. In any event, there is little basis for denying that Iran is an aggressive state, determined to undermine and control as much of the middle east as possible. If Iran obtains the bomb, there will be war in the middle east. To stop them there will be war in the middle east. The situation is rapidly coming down to which war the Israelis would rather fight and under what circumstances.

[Owlet]

4. The logic in your argument escapes me

but that's OK. It doesn't really matter what you and I think. I just hope that the folks in Tel Aviv who will make this decision are thinking clearly.

[aranthus]

3. It's coming down to a choice of wars.

Does Israel want to fight a war against Iran now or hope it won't have to later?

[azurnoir]

5. the really 'tough' part here is 'influencing' the American President to commit

American lives and yet more American dollars to Israel's war on Iran

[shaayecanaan]

6. This is the biggest heap of self-absorbed, chauvinistic shit that I have read in a long time...

Will Israel be able to survive the diplomatic isolation that will be its lot when a nuclear Iran takes control of the Persian Gulf and dictates the price of oil to the world?

Gosh, I wasn't aware that having nuclear arms enabled a country to dictate the price of oil, although it does make you wonder why the Russians and Americans haven't been able to do so, notwithstanding that they've had nuclear weapons for decades.

In short, the world that was meant to save the Jewish state from the terrible dilemma it faces, failed to do so.

"The world that was meant to save the Jewish state"? Really? The entire world is an abject success or failure depending on what it does for "the Jewish state"? Don't all those people in China, for example, have any worth in and of themselves?

Maybe the United States will sober up at the edge of the abyss. But in March 2012 the feeling in Jerusalem is that Israel is utterly alone.

Alone? With American security guarantees, 3 billion dollars a year (the most generous aid package ever given by one country to another in the history of man), 200-400 nuclear warheads, and privileged access to American military kit? You want to feel alone? Have another look at Iran. They don't have any of the above, and aside from Syria, they really are alone.