Speculation concerning three different U.S.-Israel-Iran scenarios

By Dow Marmur

Rabbi Dow Marmur

JERUSALEM — Of all the comments and spins that I’ve heard and read after the last Obama-Netanyahu meeting in the White House and Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC rally (or was it a conference?), the one that made most sense to me came from Matthew Kalman, the new editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Report.

Interviewed on the English news broadcast of Israeli television, Kalman saw the apparent differences of opinion between the American and Israeli leaders more as a deliberate game than a real crisis. He believes that Netanyahu and Obama are acting out a version of the bad cop-good cop routine.

According to this scenario, an attack on Iran isn’t imminent. However, the impression that Israel is actually unilaterally on the verge of bombing Iranian nuclear installations may strengthen the US endeavor to inhibit Iranfrom developing its nuclear capability through the imposition of crippling sanctions and possible negotiations.

The purpose is to say that America will only be able to stop Israel from military action if Iran yields to the alternatives imposed by the United States, Europe and others. The good cop is saying to the culprit, “If you don’t like what I’m doing to you, wait till my colleague starts with you.”

This scenario implies that there’s no immediate Israeli plan to attack Iran but it may happen if nothing else works. That’s perhaps why Netanyahu went out of his way to stress Israel’s sovereign right to act (unilaterally?) and to give as the primary reason its fear of another Holocaust coming from the arch-Holocaust deniers in Iran.

Needless to say, it’s not the only scenario. Another one suggests that Netanyahu is really participating in the US presidential elections on behalf of the Republican Party.  This scenario suggests that Netanyahu would indeed attack Iran because that would inevitably put up the price of oil everywhere, which in turn would affect the American economy that’s at last showing signs of recovery. On the basis of “It’s the economy, stupid,” recovery would favor the re-election of the sitting president whereas deterioration would favor the opponent. Perhaps even the possibility of an Israeli attack would do the trick to persuade Americans to elect a Republican.

Netanyahu, who has been described as a crypto American Republican, may very well like to see one of the contenders for the nomination (probably Gingrich, the favorite of their mutual friend Sheldon Adelson) to be the next President of the United States. This would account, of course, for the less than cordial relations between Netanyahu and Obama and yet compel the latter to say nice things about Israel lest the Republicans outflank him.

I wish these were the only scenarios presented. Others suggest that Israel will indeed attack. Some are already calculating the damage. They imply that Netanyahu’s Auschwitz rhetoric is a way of telling his people that damage to life and limb, and the destruction of property in central Israel as a result of Iranian retaliation, may be a small price to pay for the alternative: a second Holocaust.

But that’s such a grim scenario that even a pessimist like me finds it difficult to think about. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not on the cards or that, God beware, it may not happen. There’re a lot of hawks inIsrael.

*
Marmur is spiritual leader emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. Now dividing his time between Canada and Israel, he may be contacted at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com