Israeli attack on Iran and so on . . . Reflections by . . .

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton recently raised the question of a possible Israeli attack on Iran. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bolton urged the US to aid Israel before, during, and after such an attack—if it should take place.

This may mean that Bolton does not believe a US attack on Iran is in the cards. Indeed, pundits report that Washington is opposed to an Israeli preemptive strike because it would “destabilize” the region. And what would a nuclear armed-Iran do to the region—especially now that Vladimir Putin (allied with Iran) is restoring the Cold War, largely by means of Russia’s oil and gas resources on which Europe is dependent?

What does all this mean for Israel? The continuance of a Kadima-led government can only spell further disaster—and not only because Kadima is committed to territorial retreat from Judea and Samaria. That very commitment signifies that the leaders of that ersatz party do not have the guts to deal with the Iranian threat.

What about Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, if should he become Israel’s prime minister? It was with this question in mind that I recently urged that he submit a bill to abrogate the Oslo Agreement.

You may counter: What can Netanyahu do if the IDF continues to act on the principle that self-restraint is a form of strength—this, confronted by the most ruthless of enemies, Muslims who exult in death? What can Netanyahu do if concern with world opinion preoccupies his mentality? Yes, what can little Israel do in this world of Goliaths?

Hence, a word from Metternich: “Weaker states can ill-afford merely to react to events; they must also try to initiate them.” The State of Israel is weak only because it has weak leaders on the one hand, and an inept system of government on the other. Both had better be changed as soon as possible.