If Israel is not for Israel, then who?

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Apr 4, 2015 at 13:18

Hello, Daniel. You said,

1. If an outside power attacked the Iranian nuclear sites, this would counterproductively cause Tehran to get really angry and decide to build The Bomb.

   My response: The notion that striking the installations would inspire the Iranians to proceed is precisely backward. Also, recall that both the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs collapsed after being struck by Israeli jets.

Indeed, the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear programs did both collapse after the Israeli strikes. I suspect that the Iranian program would as well. Yes, they are still left with the technical know-how to re-start the program; but I doubt that the Iranian people would be willing to foot the bill. After an Israeli (or other, but probably Israeli) strike, the main concern of the Ayatollah would be saving face after a tremendous blow to Iranian pride.

In the case of Iraq, the Israeli strike against the Osirik reactor in 1982 happened during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein's immediate concern at the time was not retalliation against Israel, but defeating the Iranians. After defeating them, he sought to save lost face from Osirik by invading Kuwait. That badly backfired for him, and he never fully recovered.

In the case of Syria, The Israeli strike in 2007 came after Hizbullah had been effectively neutralized the year before in Lebanon by the IDF. The US fully supported Israel at the time, and was at the height of its military power. The 2011 "Arab Spring" demonstrations, and the resulting debilitating civil war in Syria have left that country unable to restart its nuclear program.

The main difference between Iran and the above two countries, is that the Iranians have had so much lead time to work on their nuclear program, thanks almost entirely to the counterproductive pressure from George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama. In practical terms, this merely means that the Israelis must strike a few more targets in order to be effective. They do not need to wipe out Iran's program: They merely need to knock out some major links in the chain. The very fact that they will be able to attack Iran with impunity, will accomplish 90% of what they need to accomplish. Israel needs to strike when:

1. the rest of the world is preoccupied with other pressing matters. Right now is actually such a time, with the Russians and Americans bogged down in the Ukraine (and in financial trouble), the EU faced with internal attacks from Greece and the UK, and China fully engaged in Xi's "anti-corruption" purge of his rivals.
2. striking Iran would not convincingly implicate Israel as the aggressor. Right now is probably NOT the best time to strike on these grounds. This summer, after the Iranians have proved that they are not interested in holding up their end of any sort of agreement, would be a better time.
3. Israel can be assured of acquiescence by her Arab neighbors. Fire away! That obstacle was cleared away long ago. In fact, if the Iranians continue to resist Saudi Arabia in Yemen, a full-blown Saudi-Iranian war would make the perfect backdrop for an Israeli attack (as it did in 1982 at Osirik).

Once Iran is de-fanged of its nukes, I expect Turkey to take up the anti-Jewish standard. Israel can handle them, provided they first bloody the Iranians. If they do not do that beforehand, though, and soon, the Turko-Iranian alliance will eventually form anyway, and be a formiddable and nuclear threat to Israel.

PM Netanyahu has been talking strongly lately; but unless he backs this up with effective action, Israel will be in an extremely dangerous situation. I know God loves and protects Israel; but it is not good to tempt Him, nor to expect him to help when the Jews won't help themselves. To paraphrase Hillel, "If they don't help themselves, who will?"

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".