Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu holds up Nazi documentation during a speech to the UN on Iran's nuclear program, September 2009. (Photo: Reuters)
I don’t think Israel is bluffing about Iran, and assume that most Rosner readers already know this (having read my analytical approach to deciding if you support an attack), but would still urge you to read David Rothkopf’s Guns of August:
It is easy to be skeptical when the alarms start going off about a pending Israeli attack on Iran. They seem to come with the seasons, a geopolitical biorhythm that reminds us never to be too comfortable with one of the world’s most volatile relationships. But it is worth remembering that the punch line of the story about the little boy who cried wolf is that ultimately, the wolf shows up.
By way of ending this week without leaving any unfinished business behind, I’d also like to direct you to two other articles about Iran – the ones that I wrote this week both for the International Herald Tribune and for Israel’s Maariv (in Hebrew).
This one is from the IHT-NYT:
All Israelis have to rely on is the chattering figureheads who are preaching for causes rather than making serious cases. For quite some time now, we’ve been the victims of a kind of Attack-Iran beauty contest: Do you believe the bass-voiced politician who compares Iran to Nazi Germany, or the popular novelist who opposes that “megalomaniacal” politician, or the handsome former military chief of staff who is warning against the “rush” to act, or the less handsome former military chief of staff and current defense minister who — along with Prime Minister Netanyahu — is the driving force behind the current frenzy?
Can any of these people be trusted?
And this paragraph is translated from my article in Maariv:
That Israel can “delay” but not “destroy” the Iranian nuclear program is indisputable, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. An American action too – with its far greater potential for destruction – is nothing but a formula for “delay”, until the Iranians try again - and again encounter force, or until they come to their senses and give up on further development, or until the regime is overthrown. So Israel’s current move is designed to bring in American involvement to realize the long campaign required to stop Iran developing its nuclear program. And debate between supporters and opponents of a violent Israeli move - namely, an attack - is nothing but a tactical argument over the best way to make the Americans more committed to winning this war.