Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Is Netanyahu Signaling a Preemptive Strike Against Iran?

Speculation in Washington and the Middle East is suddenly intensifying about a possible Israeli preemptive military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Are these unsubstantiated or exaggerated rumors being stirred by the media or by Netanyahu’s enemies, or is the Netanyahu government is seriously contemplating going to war? The answer may be both.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his colleagues see Iran steadily getting closer to building operable nuclear warheads and the ballistic missiles and terror networks to deliver them. They hear apocalyptic rhetoric coming from the mouths of Iran’s leaders, threatening to annihilate the Jewish state in order to hasten the coming of their so-called messiah, the Twelfth Imam. They see Iran denying the reality of the first Holocaust, while aggressively preparing to cause a Second Holocaust. What Netanyahu and his team do not see is the Obama administration and the international community willing to take decisive action to stop Tehran before it’s too late. To the contrary, President Obama remains unwilling to change his failed “engagement” policy towards Iran, a policy that has resembled Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler and that has given the mullahs nearly three more years to advance their nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu spoke to the Knesset on Monday and delivered his most sobering warning yet about the magnitude of the Iran threat and the rising dangers Israel is facing throughout the Middle East. “If I had to summarize what will happen in our region, I would use two terms: instability and uncertainty,” Netanyahu told his parliamentary colleagues and his nation. “The collapse of Qaddafi’s regime in Libya, the bloody incidents in Syria, the American forces leaving Iraq, the new government in Tunisia, the upcoming elections in Egypt and many other events — these are all expressions of the immense changes occurring around us. These changes can increase the instability within these countries, and the instability between countries. … A nuclear Iran would pose a terrible threat on the Middle East and on the entire world. And of course, it poses a great, direct threat on us too.”

Then, Netanyahu made news. “A security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone,” he insisted. “It must also include offensive capabilities, which is the very foundation of deterrence. We operate and will continue to operate intensely and determinately against those who threaten the security of the State of Israel and its citizens. Our policy is guided by two main principles: the first is ‘If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,’ and the second is ‘If anyone harms us, his blood is on his own hands.’”

Over the past decade, I have not heard Netanyahu or his advisers discuss such principles so publicly and so clearly. There seems to be little question that the Prime Minister and his team are laying the moral and strategic framework for preemptive military action, both against the Hamas terrorists that are firing rockets and missiles at Israel from Gaza in the near term, and against state enemies such as the Islamic Republic of Iran in the not-too-distant future.

Behind the scenes, Netanyahu is reportedly in active discussions with his cabinet on how best to proceed. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz this week reported that Netanyahu and “Defense Minister Ehud Barak are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran,” citing “a senior Israeli official.” According to the official, the paper reported, there is a “small advantage” in the cabinet for the opponents of such an attack. “Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move.” Some Netanyahu advisors, however, deny that such discussions are a prelude to any action in the near-term and argue that the left-wing media in Israel is making the discussion more ominous than it really is.

Perhaps, but the Israeli Defense Forces just test-fired a Jericho missile capable of reaching Iran. Israel recently pre-positioned submarines in the waters not far from Iran. What’s more, Israel has been running a series of national civil-defense drills over the past year to prepare the Israeli population for a war that could involve thousands of rockets and missiles raining down upon them.

These are not the only signals the Netanyahu government has been sending, just the most recent. In September, Netanyahu delivered a major address to the U.N. General Assembly in which he stated bluntly: “Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. … The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter. … The world around Israel is definitely becoming more dangerous. Militant Islam has already taken over Lebanon and Gaza. It’s determined to tear apart the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. It’s poisoned many Arab minds against Jews and Israel, against America and the West. It opposes not the policies of Israel but the existence of Israel.”

These comments followed closely on the heels of a speech by Major-General Eyal Eisenberg, chief of home-front command for the Israeli Defense Forces, who said in early September that “Iran has not abandoned its nuclear program. The opposite is true; it continues full steam ahead.” Eisenberg then added ominously that with the Iran nuclear threat rising, Arab revolutions spreading, and Turkey becoming hostile towards the Jewish state, “the likelihood of an all-out war is increasingly growing.”

Such developments are why former vice president Dick Cheney recently speculated that Israel is preparing for a first strike against Iran. It is also why in October President Obama sent Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to Israel with a surprising message from one ally to another: Don’t even consider launching preemptive strikes against Iran. The White House is trying to end U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and North Africa as fast as possible. It certainly does not want another conflict before the elections.

One thing seems clear: Israelis increasingly feel they cannot wait much longer. Economic sanctions are having an effect, but haven’t stopped Iran’s feverish bid for nukes. The Stuxnet virus has had an effect, but hasn’t shut down Iran’s nuclear program. The assassination, defection, and mysterious disappearance of senior Iranian nuclear scientists continues. Yet the Persian Bomb is closer to becoming a reality. The Obama White House is not taking decisive action to neutralize the Iran threat. Neither is the U.N. or NATO. None of the leading Republican presidential candidates have, as of yet, delivered a major address outlining a serious, principled, credible policy to neutralize Iran. At some point, Netanyahu may choose to go it alone. It all sounds like the plot of a political thriller. Unfortunately, the prospect of an all-out Israeli-Iranian war is becoming all too real.

 Joel C. Rosenberg is the author of eight best-selling novels and non-fiction books about the Middle East. His latest political thriller, The Tehran Initiative, is currently #9 on the New York Times hardcover fiction best-seller list.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   48

EXPAND  

   11/02/11 16:55

Israel cannot take out Iran's nuke program militarily, short of using its own atomic weapons. That would end Israel's existence one way or another.

This is all talk.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
bamafan
   11/02/11 20:44

Tracefan; want to bet?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Paul Kotik
   11/03/11 07:22

You have not explained how and why an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran would end Israel's existence. That contingency would of course be a key element in Israeli's strategic calculation. Would you explain?

But let's say that you're right, for the sake of argument.

If then, Israel has calculated that Iran is certain to attain nuclear weapons capability and carry out its threat to use it against Israel, do you think the Israeli prescription is to lie back and take it? If one is to be killed, and has the means to kill one's killer, would one not do so?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
J Knight
   11/03/11 16:03

"If one is to be killed, and has the means to kill one's killer, would one not do so?"

I am not disagreeing with you but was reminded of the most famous person who was put into this situation and he chose not to. Jesus Christ. And I am eternaly grateful.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/03/11 09:41

Hyperbole. Now you just need to find some straw men, and you'll have mastered democratic rhetoric 101. Throw in a syruppy sweet slogan, and you too could be the democratic nominee for President.

There are so many non-nuclear ways of slowing the Iranian nuclear program that it boggles the mind that it hasn't been done.

I predict that some sort of accident will befall the Iranian nuclear development program, one which will at the very least set back development, and which would more likely result in the neutralization of Iran's government, as the military and the clerics duke it out over assigning blame. And sixty years from now, we'll learn of a covert operation that will put James Bond to shame.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/02/11 17:16

Israel doesn't need to "take out" Iran's nuclear program, all they need to do is knock it back three to five years and buy time. Given what is happening across the middle east, given what happened in the previous Iranian election, three to five years is an eternity.

Especially as that also opens the possibility of a new American president.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jim Brown
   11/02/11 17:24

It's all talk unless you understand Bible prophecy...regardless, the bigger issue for all of us is "are we ready to meet Jesus face to face". Have we asked Him into our hearts and are we living for Him?

Everything else pales in the light of our eternity?

Saw a bumper sticker once that said, "Eternity: smoking or non-smoking".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/02/11 17:25

But what talk it is....

Such talk may provide some additional breathing room for the rest of the world.

BTW, I am very tired of seeing Chevrolet Captcha phrases.... Phooey on the Volt!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jim Brown
   11/02/11 17:26

It's all talk unless you understand Bible prophecy...regardless, the bigger issue for all of us is "are we ready to meet Jesus face to face". Have we asked Him into our hearts and are we living for Him?

Everything else pales in the light of our eternity?

Saw a bumper sticker once that said, "Eternity: smoking or non-smoking".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
David Tiffany
   11/02/11 17:29

We always pray for the peace of Israel. The Iranian regime can't continue to provoke and not expect consequences. External Link 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Fan
   11/02/11 18:43

Israel should launch EMP attack on Iran - end of problem,

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Ron Lewenberg
   11/02/11 19:59

Tracerfan,
Please look up kinetic energy weapons. A Jericho III missile can be used as delivery platform for a solid warhead containing tungsten or non-fissionable depleted uranium. a 1000kg solid warhead would land with the equivalent for of .75 Kilotons. Said force would be localized and focused around the target. I'm fairly certain that any structure would be destroyed or at least significatly damaged by multiple near-simultaneous hits by these solid shots.
A hundred of these targetting Iran's nuclear program and air defense could pave the way for roughly 100 F-16I and 25 F-15I fighter bombers escorted by 4 dozen F-15 fighters to hit any facility still in existence.
Assuming proper intel, Israel could take out Iran's nuclear program. The problems are
1. That pesky intelligence issue.
2. Israel might be able to take out Iran's nucelar program or a significant portion thereoff, but materials would remain for dirty bombs
3. Iran might decide to blame the US and punish the world by closing the PErsian Gulf with missile, mines and terrorism.
4. Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza would raign rockets down on Israel.
5. Sunni Muslims don't want an Iranian bomb, but they hate Israel. If you think the Middle East in unstable now...

Of course, the effects of an Iranian nuclear program would be much, much worse.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
jbraman10
   11/03/11 00:36

As a subscriber to Joel's Flashtraffic Blog, and having read his non-fiction work I am familiar with a *fair representation* of his views, etc (certainly could not speak for him). This article obviously is in the context of political journalism and not a faith based commentary (I would add the author is prolific at both) but I still have to ask the question: We love our enemies, bless those who persecute us, etc ,relentlessly I might add (or at least I believe that to be the goal) as followers of Christ until what? We decide to blow you up before you blow us up? I know this is not extremely specific and does not relate much to this article from a faith standpoint (as it touches little on that subject) but these are the thoughts that I have almost always now that I read Joel's work. Not a very productive comment for this discussion but felt I needed to vent that somewhere...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Terrell E Gray Jr
   11/03/11 11:37

Hi jbraman10,

There is a difference between an individual and a government.
What we as individual Christians are called to do (or called NOT to do) is not the same as what a government is called to do (or not do) and vice versa.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Tom_CA
   11/03/11 19:17

Exactly what I've been thinking in all this. It's all great if as an INDIVIDUAL Christian or a pacifist you decide not to fight back, etc. However, as a government you can not make that decision for the entire population...you are duty-bound to protect them. Period.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Sandy Kramer
   11/03/11 00:48

@tracerfan
If Israel decides a pre-emptive strike is necessary and viable, it will be successful. Israel's arsenal is larger than most realize. Should a first-strike take place, rest assured that there will be nothing in Iran with which to retaliate. Never again!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/03/11 06:49

The question is not "Is Israel serious about attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities?" but rather "Is Iran serious about destroying Israel?".

If the judgment is that Iran is just talking about destroying Israel and has no intention of doing so, then Israel has far less of a basis for attacking Iran. If the contrary is believed, that is, that Iran is serious and has been so for decades in its intention to destroy Israel as part of its hegemonic intentions over the ME, then Israel has no choice but to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. To decide otherwise is to risk annihilation.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/03/11 09:47

The logic is devastatingly simple. Either you take the Iranians at their word, or you don't. Given the potential catastrophe if you don't, prudent money is on pre-empting them. The real question is how, and what then? Fortunately, Iranians aren't Arab, and Shia aren't Sunni, so there may be some leeway in the amount of blowback to be expected from the Arab world.

When the literal lives of your citizens are at stake, you have to assume the mad man will do exactly what he says he will, and act to prevent it. And since he will almost certainly keep trying if left alive, you put the rabid dog down, hard. Then you glance around and challenge who wants to be next.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/03/11 08:17

Good Hunting and Godspeed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   11/03/11 09:57

Some of the commenters here have grasped reality.

A conventional military strike against Iran won't stop its nuclear program and will allow Iran to say publicly that it's changed its mind because of the attack and will now develop its own nukes as a deterrent.

A nuclear strike on Iran is unthinkable.

The best strategy is to allow a rather sophisticated country to grow its way out of Islamic theocracy. This will happen sooner rather than later in Iran.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact