Should Israel bomb Iran?

Iran is becoming the biggest issue of the Middle East.  Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, has been under considerable pressure since last summer’s war in Lebanon, which has been widely criticised in Israel for “failure to achieve its objectives”.  He is concerned to defend a moderate policy in Iran, which is a matter of controversy.  He recently told a meeting of his Kadima Party, “I believe that the world and we know how to deal with the present threat, but, please, we need to stop instilling fear of an existential threat just to grab the headlines.    There is no need to make the present threat worse than it is.”

The recently retired Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has commented, “Iran will have to be stopped, no doubt about it.”  There are hawks and doves in Israel;  there are certainly hawks and doves in Washington;  even in London, Jack Straw had to resign from the Foreign Office because he said it would be “nuts” to bomb Iran’s nuclear plants.  I sympathise with Jack Straw, but I think that the opinion in Israel and the U.S. is moving towards action against Iran, which has been supplying arms to militants in Iraq.  Which side of the argument is the right one?  Would Israel be safer if Iran was bombed, or, as the Israeli Prime Minister seems to think, would Israel become less safe?

Comments

[Winchester whisperer]

Unusually, I am on Jack Straw's side. We're all sick of killings in the Middle East and, to my mind, it is not obvious why bombing Iran would be beneficial to Israel. It would be fuel to the flames of anti-Americanism/Israelism, encourage terrorism and deepen the perceived divide between Islamic and Western cultures.

[Chris Sherwood]

Less safe; anyone who thinks the contrary is bananas.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

This is an unwise question.

[Peter]

Hummm... WITHOUT a nuke: Iran threatens Israels total destruction, denies the Holocaust, and launches deadly attacks on Israelis and Americans via its proxies in Lebanon and Iraq. One wonders what it would do WITH a nuke or two or ten ?

[Ian Burgess]

If Israel and Iran could learn to talk to each other each with respect for the existence of other that would be the safest solution.

[lamplighter]

It's not a question of whether or not Israel should or should not "nuke" Iran. Events seem to be spiraling out of control. In the face of Iranian threats to destroy Israel, whose people were once before threatened by another maniac who actually carried out the threat, fear may be the deciding factor. Fear, like religious obstinacy is hard to argue with. Also, do not discount the other pol of questionable sanity and intelligence who still has two years left in his term. What a powderkeg! If conflict is inevitable the everpresent question becomes "now or later?" (as in 1939).

[Sean]

This is one of the hardest political questions around. The biggest risk seems to be that by bombing you create all the negative effects foreseeen by Winchester whisperer below, but fail to do more than delay Iran's programme by a few years, and encourage an even more secretive, dispersed and hardened programme of research in the future. Result, in 10 years Iran has the bomb anyway but is now even more vitriolically anti-Israeli (if that's possible) and anti Western while the fall out from the bombing might result in a disaster such as a revolution in Saudi Arabia and the creation of another theocratic anti-western state, but controlling 25% of the world's oil. A very high risk game to be playing.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

The Israelis are surrounded by people who would sooner Israel was not there. Aside from the US Administration, no one enthuses over Israel any longer; many are luke cold and others variously hostile. In this climate of historical antipathy, Israel is about as safe now as it is ever likely to be. If bombing Iran had any effect on Israel’s safety, I suspect it would be negative if not terminal.

[donkykemore]

It may be blindingly simplistic for a member of a neutral state to overview the whole sorry road to Iraq thus ;
The transfer of the object of hatred from a genie like figure such as Osama to a specified country was necessary for all of the pre arranged military objectives – it was to give justification desperately needed by the military at the time.It was as necessary to find a legitimised target to give expression to the understandable US citizenry's collective wrath - as much so as was the bombing of negasssaki/ hiroshima , for pearl harbour - a catharsis was inevitable then but is was , even in it's ignomony ,m ore noble than the attack on Bagdad.
The military goons would have advised to choose an identifiable country , and if it could carry the lable of axis of evil ,so much the better – it had to be Iraq –a geopolitical entity, which could become the manifestation of the National bete noir.
And all this time the aircraft were being geared up on the runways.
Then the announcement of the ‘’shock and awe ‘’strategy – the bombing of Baghdad (as barbarous an act as the bombing of Dresden in WW2) – then the justification, and the black rabbit was pulled from the masked conjurers hat – No WMDs – so what he’s a despot and he killed his own people – the Kurds mind you – so by this time it was all down to the visuals
The bombing made great TV. There was no point in filming the bombing of the Torah Bora Mountains. Then the president dressed in a bomber jacket is flown 3 miles off shore to an aircraft carrier to announce – Mission accomplished.
But there was more to come – when they finally captured Saddam – another great TV moment – Ladies and gentlemen – we got him.
But you saw it all on TV and like in the film ‘wag the dog ‘ if you see it on TV- its for real.
As for Osama . A diabetic with renal failure holding out in the Tora Bora Mountains; unlikely. If indeed he is alive at all. - But you’ve seen the ethereal images he created on TV also- so he’s for real.
All he ever need to conjure up was to recreate something from the Arabian nights – a genie like creature – ephemeral elusive; maybe an illusion.
But what was not an illusion was the superb logistical precision which went in to levelling the two icons of Western decadence; Militarily this was an unbelievable stroke of terrorist genius; in logistical and strategic terms it was as inspired as the Israeli raid on entebbe;it left the US calling for Superman. But all they got was a befuddled, bumbling, cowardly President. And a new hero rose up from the ashes of the glowing towers – a New York Jew – who is now running for the next presidency.
And the manner of hanging of the despot and the US handing him over like Pontious Pilate while the Britts like janus looked the other way while they deplored the barbarity of capital punishmnet - this ensured forever Saddam's place beside the great Salladin .
now the road has been cleared for a nuke attack on Iran - a strategy that the overlords in the kinessetand whitehouse were agreed on ab initio.

donmacnamara

[Dom]

West vs Islam is a very different battle to Israel (Judaism) vs Islam. The stakes are much higher for Israel, they cannot endure another Lebanon debacle; but if diplomacy fails and Israel is threatened by Iran, it has a duty to protect its citzens. Better to be 'nuts' or 'bananas' than dead.

[Alex Swanson]

It's clear that Iran is being run by people who (a) hate Israel, and (b) are trying to build atomic weapons. Anyone who can't do the math on this one probably also thinks World War Two was our fault for provoking Hitler.

[Nicholas Wibberley]

The Israelis are surrounded by people who would sooner Israel was not there. Aside from the US Administration, no one enthuses over Israel any longer. Israel is nevertheless still generally tolerated which makes it about as safe as it is ever likely to be. If Iran attacked Israel today, world outrage would exceed more local satisfaction. Israel bombing Iran, however, could provoke largely dormant antipathy which might well get out of hand.

[paul wright]

The US and Israel only pick fights with military minnows, they are both big, hulking cowards.
So no attack.

[John]

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, advanced delivery systems, is not a signatory of the NPT, permits no inspections whatsoever, and has a long history of aggressive and over-reactive military actions. The the most recent example is the pulverizing of Lebanon and killing about a thousand civilians there after two soldiers were siezed by Hezbollah. Iran has not attacked any country for over 250 years, is a signatory of the NPT and permits extensive inspections, nothing to date beyond unsupported allegations and political attack indicates weapons grade enrichment is of evidence. Yes, the current President Ahmadinejad has made very inflamatory and unwise statements, but pre-emptive war with nuclear weapons on this account is entirely unwise in terms of the predictable consequences, as well as being unjustified on the merits.

[Charles Fiddes Payne]

Should Israel bomb Iran? Israel isn’t an American lackey, it will bomb Iran’s nuclear potential if it thinks that would increase its security against an Iranian threat. This has nothing to do with stopping Iran’s “supplying arms to militants in Iraq”, as noted in your piece above. Marechal Foch’s oft-recalled question in WW1 “De quoi s’agit il?” should be asked.

If you are asking if Israel should bomb Iran to further the UK’s interests, that is a different question again. Lord Rees-Mogg, what is your question getting at?

[Robin Bather]

Should Iran bomb Israel?

After all, it is Israel which possesses undeclared and uninspected nuclear weapons, and enough missiles to wipe it's neighbours off the map.
It is Israel which has expanded far beyond the borders granted to it by the United Nations in 1947.
It is Israel which has taken control of the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem.

[Peter Lewin]

What choice does Israel have? The rest of the world offers only appeasement and, at best, ineffectual sanctions.

As Sen. John Kery put it, "There is only one thing worsae than bombing Iran and that is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons".

Well that day is dawning and the USA alone, perhaps with the UK, will act with Israel to delay Iran's atomic bomb.

At present, delay and disruption is the best that can be expected from a pre-emptive strike.
The complete elimination of Iran's programme will require the use of tactical nuclear bombs, which is unlikely, although not impossible.

Israel will not wait for a moment more than is necessary. Iran has made clear its intention to wipe out the Jewish State and Israel needs no excuses to defend herself.

[Phil Barber]

Whilst I agree with the view that attacking Iran would fuel violence, what other option does Israel have?
If the leader of a neighbouring European country announced his utter hatred of the UK and his intention to wipe us off the face of the earth and his country made a serious attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. What choice would we have other than to make military preparations and consider a premptive strike?
Diplomacy and economic pressure must, of course, be applied, but the world may have to steel itself for the worst.
I hope and pray a peaceful solution may be found.

[Kevin Sullivan]

I do not think that Israel can even contemplate bombing Iran. The days when the US and Israel could act with impunity are over! Iran enjoys good relations with China & Russia (who increasingly provide a counter balance to US influence) and many other countries throughout the world. The world is moving on, individual countries will develope policies not always to the liking of the US (and Israel) but for the first time in many years consensus will play a more prominent role in developing solutions,or, god help all of us!

[Anne Klausner]

Israel is between a rock and a hard place, and no matter what she does she will be condemned, because that is the way the world is. If Israel does not bomb Iran she risks being obliterated, and the world will stand by and wring its hands and put up pretty monuments to those poor dead Jews. The world will also condemn Israel's feeble-mindedness in not attacking preemptively.

If Israel does bomb Iran she risks a counter-attack and no doubt worldwide condemnation, as happened after Israel bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor - no matter that the bombing would have helped make the world a better place without nuclear weapons in the hands of a messianic madman.

In the end Israel has to be the judge of her own security and will act as she sees fit, especially as the lily-livered world community seems in no rush to defend itself or Israel.

[Bozo]

Bombing Iran when its population seems to be increasing tired of the anti-semitic ranting and econominc incompetence of its current president would simply reinforce position of the radicals. It would probably also lead to an endless war with the world's Muslim population. But considered strategic thinking as never been a strong point of the current White House. They'll probably do it for the photo opportunity.

[Karen Jones]

"This is all so unpleasant. Cant we all just get along...blah blah blah"

Freedom is not free. In one short lifetime we have lost the lessons of a generation. Complacency and wishing will not make this monster go away. Talking and negotiating is what he is counting on - while he busily makes preparations for the 12th Imam.

[Karen Jones]

Cicero played while Ahmadinejad prepared for the 12th Imam.

[mikewhills]

Whether the US or Israel wants to bomb Iran or not, it's clear that neither has the strength in numbers to launch such an attack. Hopefully it'll stay like that...

[kas]

'It would be fuel to the flames of anti-Americanism/Israelism, encourage terrorism and deepen the perceived divide between Islamic and Western cultures.'

How much more could it encourage all of the above?
The 'perceived divide' is not perceived it is there. Islam in practically all its teachings is against the values held by western cultures