Should Will they or Shouldn't Won't They?

There is an election coming up in Israel, quite soon.  Perhaps in the fall.  There has been so much in the way of leaked information, official discussions bruited about in the news media about the capabilities and intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran preparing to finalize yet another Final Solution, that the majority of Israelis are not totally averse to a belligerent pre-emption of intention.


"I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings.  I have observed them from up close.  I fear very much that these are not the people I'd want at the wheel", according to Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel's Shin Bet domestic intelligence service.  Who claims that the current leaders of the country "present a false view to the public on the Iranian bomb, as though acting against Iran would prevent a nuclear bomb."


Israel has travelled this road before.  They've had a rehearsal, and now they may be facing the real thing.  Israel's expeditious destruction of the threat it perceived during the rehearsal worked very well, but the process inspired Iran to build its threatening structures inside mountains, under impenetrable bunkers deep in the ground, reinforced with steel and concrete impermeable to ordinary bunker-busters.  And not merely one target, but many.


The issue is whether to attack, and when.  Critical details, to be sure.  Expert evaluations with respect to success and/or time bought by acting, not waiting for what seems the inevitable to occur and then responding, seems to give some measure of assurance.  Paradoxically it is the executive branch of the government which promotes action.


Current and former Israeli military and intelligence officials, well seasoned and informed in the matters of national security and threats from abroad are anxious, from their unprecedented public statements, to pull the country back from the brink of final commitment.  Like a weigh scale, one side promotes the idea of action, while the other agitates against it.


The former chief of Mossad characterized the government's decision to move ahead with an assault on Iran's nuclear infrastructure "the stupidest thing I have ever heard", not exactly a confidence-building opinion.  A preemptive Israeli strike would inevitably be interpreted as "reckless and irresponsible", and a regional war might just erupt, as a result.


"It will be followed by a war with Iran.  It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end", he prophesied.  Well, one can recall the agonizingly prolonged war waged between Iraq and Iran, where the Ayatollahs did not hesitate to send out battalions of untrained Iranian youth as fodder for the greater glory of Allah. 

If the ayatollahs felt no compunction about sacrificing a generation of young boys, what concerns might they have about embroiling themselves in another brutal war?


Either of their own making, or as a response to an Israeli offence meant to destroy the capability of Iran to mount an aggressive offensive with a view to eradicating Israel, as mentioned formally and informally on more than a few occasions, even within the sacred precincts of the United Nations.  The head of Mossad seems to deny that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would threaten Israel.


"The term existential threat is used too freely", he is said to have stated, rather cavalierly.  Surprisingly so, given the fact that the threat has been expressed repeatedly.  And Meir Dagan's revelation that he would not support a pre-emptive strike because the government of Iran is "a very rational one" whose officials are "considering all the implications of their actions".


Rather a surprising conclusion to reach, given the Ayatollahs' belief in the coming Apocalypse which they might even hasten, to the greater glory of the Islamic State, should they decide to proceed past threats to active assault status armed with the weapons that would allow them to achieve their goal.  As for President Netanyahu, his opinion seems to reflect an historical lesson.


"Those who dismiss Iran's threats as exaggerated or as mere idle posturing have learned nothing from the Holocaust."  Those who forget the past, in other words, are destined to repeat it.  Or have it repeated on themselves.  Never again, was the motto that sustained international Jewry after the Holocaust.


And the singular country that denies the existence of the Holocaust is prepared to mount one and correct history.  Might we just ask them politely: "Can't we just all try to get along nicely, in a civilized manner?"  You first.