Will We Pay the Price If Israel Hits Iran?

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic writer is worried about Iran and Israel. His worry is not the usual one. Although Goldberg is an American Jew so committed to Israel that he served in the Israeli army, Goldberg is worried about what an Israeli attack on Iran would mean for America and specifically for American Jews. He writes,

"The problem is simple: Muslim extremists often conflate Israel and the Diaspora. They do this for two reasons: One, they are anti-Semites, and so tend to see all Jews, and not merely 'Zionists,' as their enemies; the second is a practical one -- it is easy to strike at soft Jewish targets outside of Israel, easier, certainly, than executing mass terror attacks against Israeli targets these days. And so what you have, on occasion, is an attack like the one directed against the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994, in which eighty-five people were murdered."

In other words, American Jews -- comfortable in their homes in New York, Washington, or LA -- could pay a very heavy price if Israel attacks Iran.

Goldberg writes that the reason we don't hear much about this issue of "blowback" is that just raising it challenges the fundamental premise underlying Zionism. The existence of the state of Israel supposedly makes Jews in the Diaspora safer. If, on the other hand, actions taken by Israel jeopardize Jews outside of Israel then the Zionist concept looks flawed.

Blowback also cuts into the whole idea of Diaspora sympathy for, and identification with, Israel. If American Jews believe that their own children and grandchildren here are no more secure than children and grandchildren in Israel, suddenly the playing field is leveled. Sympathy and concern is no longer a one-way street. After all, as much as we care about Israel's well-being, we are more concerned with the well-being of our own families wherever they may live, and with the well-being of our neighbors and our country. That is as it should be. After all, no one imagines that Israelis living in Tel Aviv are more concerned about Jewish kids in Brooklyn than about their own kids. Why would they be?

The whole question of whether Israel's actions can jeopardize us here is fraught with troubling questions. But they have to be raised.

An Israeli attack on Iran -- absent an imminent threat of attack from Iran -- is a terrible idea for many reasons. It would not succeed in eliminating Iran's nuclear program but would almost surely prompt Iran to both opt out of the international inspection regime and redouble its efforts to produce a bomb. It would unite Arabs and Muslims against the United States (they know that Israel could not attack Iran without implicit or explicit U.S. approval). It would have a disastrous effect on the American effort next door in Iraq, eliminating recently made gains and endangering 130,000 American troops (this is why Secretary of Defense Gates so vehemently opposes an Israeli attack). And it would end the Arab-Israeli peace process, even putting the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan at risk. And, no small thing, an attack would lead to a deadly Hezbollah missile onslaught against Israel, joined no doubt by Hamas in the south.

Nonetheless, an attack is not out of the question because there are forces in Israel and here that believe that anything, no matter how dangerous, is better than either negotiating with Iran or relying on sanctions. These people are as hell-bent for war with Iran as they were for war with Iraq. Mostly, they are the same people. Always wrong, always eager for war. (Many of these people encouraged Georgia to take on Russia, as always disregarding consequences).

Of course, the last major war they agitated for -- the one to depose Saddam -- did not present the same threat of blowback here. Saddam Hussein was a lone wolf. Despite the now thoroughly discredited propaganda issued by neocons in and out of the administration, he was not allied with Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group that would seek to avenge him. Iran is.

And Iran, or its proxies such as Hezbollah, no doubt has sleeper cells here ready to strike following an attack on the Shiite motherland.

Not long ago, we Americans could imagine that we were immune to the kind of terrorism long afflicting Israel and other places. No more. The 9/11 attacks that took 3,000 lives in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania were the most deadly attacks anywhere. After 9/11, nobody can tell Americans that we are naïve and that if we experienced what the Israelis have, we'd be wiser. We now know the ways of the world all too well. (My mother's little neighborhood in New York City lost 75 people on 9/11. My brother-in-law lost 300 "brothers"--fellow firefighters in the New York City Department (FDNY), by far the largest number of firefighters ever lost).

And it's not like 9/11 is likely to be the last terrorist attack on our shores. No one in our government believes that. More than a few are surprised that we have not experienced a second 9/11 already.

There are, of course, those who argue that nothing the United States or its allies do have any connection to any attacks here. It is an article of faith for neoconservatives that "they" hate us for who we are and not for anything we do. But that's nonsense. They may hate us for who we are but they often attack us because of things we have done. The Spanish government tried, after the terrible attack on Madrid that took 200 lives, to blame Basque terrorists because it did not want to admit that it was the Spanish government's decision to commit troops to Iraq that caused the attack. Later the truth came out and the government fell.

In short, actions have consequences. Governments, including the governments of the United States and Israel, should consider them before preemptively attacking another Muslim state, especially when it is almost certain that an unprovoked attack will fail and leave the United States, Israel, and the world even less secure than before.

Jeff Goldberg wonders if we Americans have the right to advise Israel on what it should or shouldn't do on matters that relate to Israel's security. Of course we do -- when it also affects our own.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center.

Comments

[Boxjob]

Has anyone considered the consequences of attacking Iran? The attack would be entirely preemptive and unprovoked. Second it be a situation where a signatory country of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran) was attacked by non signatory (Israel and the US) for developing nuclear power within the framework of the treaty including inspections. The Russians is also not to be dismissed. They have several systems that we can not combat (see the S-400). To date they have not sold any to Iran or anyone else. An attack on Iran would change that. The Chinese insist that President Bush does not have the institutional power to attack Iran. If he does attack the Chinese could use their foreign exchange holdings to stop the war by ending our borrowing capacity. We borrow three billion dollars a day to fund our “noble” enterprises. The direct Iranian response is also problematic. They will close the straight of Hormuz and send the price of oil to $500.00 per barrel temporarily, but if they destroy a Saudi refinery or similar target the price would stay that high for years. All that is insane and I fail to see why people consider an attack on Iran anything other than suicidal madness, which is also the opinion of the entire General Staff of the United States Military. Only political ideologues and imbeciles favor such a reckless policy.

[AvrahamZhurba]

In WWII, when Jews in Europe were being killed in masses, in New York Jews us usual going to theaters. Once, a ship from Europe arrived with Jewish refugees with no papers. US officials didn't know what to do to send them back or to accept. Jews of New York came out on the streets to protest ... the black rights. The ship was send back and all the passengers were killed.

When we fail a test we get presented with it again, in hope that this time we will do it right. The situation now seems very similar. Should we scream at Jews in Israel: "Hey, keep it quiet there. What? You are about to be burnt alive with atomic bomb? Sha. How can you be so selfish and not to think about your brothers in US who might be put at risk if you try to defend yourself? Sit quietly and don't put us into danger. Maybe you could negotiate somehow with the person who every second week goes public to speak how much he would enjoy killing you. It's ok if you will not succeed, after all we will be left to tell the tail."

How about going out in protest against US backing away from it's promises to protect Israel from Iran by stopping Iranian nuclear program by all needs necessary. It will be too late to strike on Iran after it uses (should never happen) atomic rockets on Israel like Barak promises now to us.

[11907281]

WOW, you lack of humanity is appalling. Your reasoning and logic is flawed. Your bloodlust is apparent. What about North Korea? They have a weapon and a very crazy leader, who IMO, is a lot more likely to use them. What about Matan Vilnai and his "shoa" that he wants to bring the people of Palestine? I say Isreal needs to declare their substantial stock pile of "atomic rockets" and sign the NPT, until then the kettle should stop calling the pot.

[Whinger]

The day is fast approaching when Iran will cross the line as Israel will see it, and they will launch multiple strikes to disable Iranian nuclear ambitions!

Iran will strike back with conventional weapons which will cause Israel to follow through with massive retalitory strikes. At this time, Hizbollah will gatecrash the party and open another front, one may well see the use of battfield nuclear weapons being used when this happens.
Israel has been supplied with these mini nukes in anticipation of this future conflict, all possibilities have been planned for, it has been considered necessary to bring Iran and others to their knees!

[WorkingClass]

The United States and Israel will not survive a war with Russia, Iran and China. Advocates for world war three are reading to many comic books. America needs to learn to live within its means and within its borders.

[Neighbor1]

Rosenberg is paranoid about "these people."
Do editors check columnists' material? Example: one paragraph in M Rosenberg's piece reads like it was written by Joe McCarthy:
...there are forces [Who? ] in Israel and here that believe that anything, no matter how dangerous, is better than either negotiating with Iran or relying on sanctions. These people [Who are these people?] are as hell-bent for war with Iran as they were for war with Iraq. Mostly, they are the same people [who are they already?]. Always wrong, always eager for war. (Many of these people [Who are these people? Can Rosenberg name one?] encouraged Georgia to take on Russia, as always disregarding consequences).

[WorkingClass]

Ever heard of neo-cons? Bill Kristol, Dick Cheney, etc.?

[jollyelle]

Sure, we've heard of em, you are absolutely right.......but the point is when there is a post on a blog, the writer should be informing the readers and naming "these people." That's a major downfall, people have to be made aware of the neocon subset of the Republican party.
That info needs to be repeated as often as humanly possible until the average voter knows exactly who is directing and influencing our foreign policy. We need to name names and philosophical ideologies so people can easily identify the "these people."

GREAT POINT, Neighbor1!!!!

[Neighbor1]

Name one of "these people" who pushed Georgia to attack Russia. No one is that crazy, not even Kristol or Cheney.

[BiBiJan]

How many different ways will people find to make war on Iran an acceptable discourse, or at least topical, constantly?

If an entire set of suppositions comes true, then really the US has no choice but to hit Iran, preemptively, today. Mr. Rosenberg, Americans are not stupid. You are using a new angle: well Isreal hits Iran, Iran will hit New York, and so ..... for self defense, America should destroy Iran preemptively. Did I get the gist right. How about US increases its aid to Israel and ship lots of Prozac. Wouldn't that be cheaper way of handling this?

As MAX RODENBECK wrote in the NY Times recently:

"Can’t we just admit that American support for Israel is strategically burdensome and is driven by the passion of several domestic constituencies rather than cold cost-benefit geopolitics? Can’t we see that the temptation to intervene in places like the Middle East arises as much because “they” are weak as because “we” are just and noble? No matter what good will America’s “policy community” proclaims toward the Middle East, this mix of blinkered indulgence of Israel and disdain for the rest of the region, as well as a predilection for Wilsonian dreams over achievable goals, suggests we will remain in the wilderness for some time to come."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/books/review/Rodenbeck-t.html?ex=1377316800&en=1d5d08dd82801c86&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

For a reality check on Iran, see

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/

[jeanrenoir]

It was a fascinating straw in the wind when the Times printed Rodenbeck's critique of Pollack's "liberal" neocon book on the Middle East as its lead review yesterday. There is a huge, Armageddon-like battle going on in the American Jewish community between the neocons and the liberals. Hillary was as much a Dem tool of the neocons as W has been a Republican one. Obama's our only hope for a more independent Middle Eastern policy based primarily on America's and the world's best interests, rather than Likud's. But if either Israel or W, or Pres. McCain, actually attacks Iran and causes American gas and heating oil prices to double or triple overnight, there will be an unbelievable firestorm against this action, and ultimately against Israel's influence in America, exploding from Middle America itself, from the very Archie Bunkers Israel and the neocons have been so skillful at cultivating to support their Middle Eastern policies since the election of Reagan. The idea that Middle Americans will calmly accept $12 gas and unaffordable heating oil, not to mention wiped out 401Ks as the world's markets are annihilated, is simply preposterous. Middle American rage is what Israel and the neocons should fear as much as Iranian nukes, because wiping out Middle America economically with the fallout of a raid on Iran would have the same psychological consequences, and potential for antisemitic demagoguery, as the German inflation of 1923. Can anyone doubt that American demagogues would arise to take advantage of the anger?

[Boxjob]

You are a brave man my friend. As you know the forces that want war also control media and little minutia such as tenure at universities and so on. If you are in a position to lose your position you surely will. I myself am not Jewish but I am a realist and I feel sorry for someone of your coviction. Truth is no defense. It merely worsens the enormity of the crime. Your system, as well as ours, are irretreivably out of control.

[thereigoagain]

Yes, we'll pay the price of a safer world if Iran is without nuclear weapons. I'll take disdain from "world opinion" anyday in exchange for safety. Behind the scenes the world will be thankful

[deminmo]

There are carriers poised in the Middle East to initiate
a naval blockade. Early in the campaign, McCain mentioned
an October surprise. Probably close to the time in 2007 that
Bush made his famous statement about Iran having the knowlege
to build nuclear weapons could touch off WW III. Bush has a plan
in place, and one to declare martial law. He has conducted massive
training exercises with the military and civilian support personnel.
If this blockade happens, it will set off action by Iran, which in turn will
give the White House the reason for war. Can we really let this happen?

[ONETINSOLDIER]

Inaction has consequences also,i have followed the mideast for 45 years,i am of middle eastern descent,if you think you can sit across a table and deal with the leaders of Syria,Iran,Hamas or Hezbullah and get anything from them you are wrong.The one exception being is if they are afraid they are on the verge of losing their life and/or dynasty ,like tomorrow, and i am not sure of that.How many trips did Warren Christopher and James Baker go to talk to Hafez Asad?The four above parties already think they have the US and Israel on the ropes.How do think Iran is going to act when they get the bomb?The inside "joke" in Iran is that we play checkers while they play chess,which they invented.Unfortunately some of these people fit into the category of what Churchill said of the Germans:"They are either under your boot or at your throat".