As an Israeli, I have a patriotic obligation to be terrified. So say important and influential people — like my prime minister, Ehud Olmert. The Iranian nuclear program, he said in a recent speech, is “a threat to (the) very existence’’ of the Jewish people. Israel has to ensure that the world does not ignore the threat, as it ignored the Nazis, he said.
Ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, always better at pithy words of panic, said in a speech, “It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany.’’ Use of that metaphor is not confined to right-wing politicians. A normally dovish security analyst told me that if all else fails — “all else’’ including American military action — Israel will use force to keep Iran from getting the bomb, because “no prime minister can take the risk of another holocaust.’’ The public seems to accept such evaluations. A poll found two-thirds of Israelis believe if Iran gets the bomb, it will try to destroy Israel. Certainly, Israel should be concerned about a nuclear Iran. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, stating that Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment in defiance of the UN Security Council, reinforces the sense of threat. But panic is a bad basis for policy. The constant comparison of Iran and Nazi Germany empowers hawks in the Bush administration to use Israel as justification for an attack. Yet America’s war in the Middle East has destabilized the region, making it more dangerous for Israel.
And if the United States doesn’t act, should Israel send its own planes? Even if Iran does not yet have nukes, it could retaliate — for instance, via the rockets of its ally in Lebanon: Hezbollah. The high-fear response says no price is too great to prevent another holocaust. But let me suggest reasons to stay calm.
There’s something strangely ahistorical — and nearly non-Zionist — in the arguments of Olmert, Netanyahu, et al. In 1938, Jews did not have an independent state. Today, Israel is a regional power. Except for a slip of the tongue by Olmert in December, Israel does not say it has nuclear arms. But that slip — in which Olmert classified Israel as a nuclear power like America, France or Russia — confirmed foreign reports. Those reports sometimes refer to Israel’s presumed second-strike capability, the ability to destroy an enemy even if the enemy struck first. That deterrence kept the Soviet Union and America from using nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
Panic-prone and highly placed figures say deterrence won’t work with Iran. Islamic fundamentalists, goes the argument, place no value on life, as shown by Iran’s willingness to sacrifice child soldiers in the 1980s war with Iraq. It also has sponsored Hezbollah and Hamas, which make use of suicide bombers. So Iran would be willing to commit national suicide to get rid of Israel.
But the argument again ignores history. In the midst of the Cold War, when Nikita Khrushchev was threatening to bury the West, the Soviet Union also seemed hell-bent on fulfilling ideology. Communism made no more sense in the West than Islamism does now. Nor did anyone in the West ever suspect the Soviets of respecting the value of individual lives. Nonetheless, Soviet leaders wanted to preserve their country.
There’s also historical experience with Iran. Political scientist Reuven Pedatzur of Tel Aviv University, a voice of caution among the strategy experts, points out that Iran agreed to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq once Iraqi missiles began falling on Tehran. The ayatollahs were willing to sacrifice soldiers but not national survival. The threat of mushroom clouds should concentrate their thinking about Israel powerfully.
One more factor in the panic is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His anti-Israel rhetoric and holocaust denials are perfectly pitched to frighten Jews. We should avoid giving him the pleasure. When Mohammad Khatami was president of Iran, we were advised that his moderation made little difference because real power lay with the ayatollahs. So let us not overrate Ahmadinejad’s power — especially as reports multiply that his popularity is fading.
None of this is reason for complacency. Better that Iran have no nukes than that we have to deter it from using them. But if Israel avoids desperation, it can avoid serving as a pretext for another American military misadventure. It will have more patience for the economic and diplomatic means that could weaken Iran’s regime and push it to compromise. As I see it, therefore, I have a patriotic obligation not to be terrified.
— Gershom Gorenberg is the author of “The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977.’’
