By Rabbi Dow Marmur
JERUSALEM–The website of the British tabloid the Daily Mirror shows a detailed diagram of how Israel would attack Iran using sophisticated fighter planes, drones and missiles from its five ultra-modern submarines. It also predicts when: not later than April.
The why is there, too:Iran could make four nuclear bombs within a year. In view of the repeated threats by its leaders to cut out the “cancerous tumor” that’s Israel, the Jewish state has ample reason to contemplate preventive action for its own survival.
I sense an eerie calm about it here. Though we hear that “all options are on the table,” people seem to prefer to talk about other things, not because they don’t care but because they care too much and know that ordinary folk will be the victims, yet have no power to decide. The consequences are too gruesome to contemplate.
I’d like to believe that the brutal threats from Iran are intended for internal consumption to keep its opposition at bay in the light of the crippling sanctions that much of the rest of the world has imposed upon the regime. This threat to Iran’s economy is estimated to be more devastating than any attack on its nuclear installations.
Perhaps Israeli generals only want to intimidate the Iranians, because they, too, know that military attacks will cause havoc while sanctions may be much more effective.
Imbued with such wishful thinking and, of course, speaking out of customary ignorance I take comfort in Saturday’s New York Times editorial that warns Israel against attacking Iran. I surmise that it may be more influential than my fervent prayers.
And I’d like to believe that there’s no real proof that Iran has decided to produce fuel for building bombs; that the cost of an Israeli attack would be so huge that even the ayatollahs will counsel caution; that it would unite Iran and diminish the prospects of the opposition to succeed; that it would break the current international coalition about the sanctions that may bring Iran to its knees without Israeli armed intervention; that the fall of Assad of Syria would be a further and effective blow to Iran.
I was also impressed by an expert who suggested on Israeli TV that instead of attacking Iranians,Israel should turn them into friends by providing medical isotopes to save many lives that are now at risk there because of the lack of proper cancer treatment.
Yet the fear remains that Israel may take advantage of the pending US elections and strike with little or no American support. Therefore, the Times may have taken it upon itself to warnIsrael against such action. Hence this concluding paragraph:
“Israel must defend itself. This country’s alliance with Israel is crucial. We hope for everyone’s sake that Israel’s leaders weigh all of the consequences before they act. A military attack would almost certainly make things worse. Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear program.”
The warning would be convincing if we could be sure that the actions of politicians and generals, even our own, are always measured, mature and prudent. Unfortunately, neither history nor contemporary evidence supports such assumptions.
And then there’s this: after the disastrous Carmel fire in December 2010, it became obvious that Israel’s fire fighting services are woefully inadequate: the recent report by the State Comptroller makes tragic reading. It’ll take another couple of years to bring the services up to scratch. Missile attacks next April could devastate the country.
*
Rabbi Marmur is spiritual leader emeritus at Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. He now divides his time between Canada and Israel. He may be contated at dow.marmur@sdjewishworld.com