Bret Stephens for the Wall Street Journal recently wrote an op-ed piece about Why Israel Hasn’t Attacked Iran. Although he has received numerous accolades from around the world, I am surprised at his war hawking in this piece.
First off, Israel completed a rocket tracker yesterday that can shoot Hezbollah and Hamas rockets out of the sky. Nice. That kind of defensive warfare not only sounds cool, but will likely keep Israelis safe.
Stephens runs through the ideas as to why Israel has not yet blown the Iranian reactor to pieces, of which include the unlikelihood of success, time biding, internally jarring Israeli politics, and a history of European intercessions, should anything arise.
He writes, “There is now talk that the Obama administration may be reconsidering its military options toward Iran. Let’s hope so.” Oh, Mr. Stephens. I’m not the anti-Israel, give peace a chance toting blogger that you commonly come across, but at least I recognize that in the 21st century, any kind of “military options” for peace aren’t going to work.
The world is too interrelated – take the flotilla for example. What if Israel bombed Iran? The whole world would effectively abolish the Jewish state. But same goes for Iran – if they even touched Israel, the West would come down way hard on them. So everyone plays it cool. Israel’s got the defense, Iran can waste their money on W.M.D. Everyone’s happy, right?
After the assasination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, there has been much international finger pointing at Israel. If al-Mabhouh’s attempt to procure supplies for Iran in order to facilitate nuclear warfare is true, then his assasination is just another prevention measure against bringing rockets into Gaza. Essentially there is no problem with this. Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran are all in cahoots together and the Massad is right in discovering how and where arms can be located. This is another battle of east vs. west. The question is how it can be resolved.
While some Jews rightly say that Arabs in the West Bank still refuse to acknowledge the formation of a Jewish state, and that their insurrection is the target of Mossad,
it is important to examine a perspective from another side.
A recent article entitled “Does Mossad Really Make Israel Safer?” printed in this week’s Economist, proposes an alternate vision. Meir Dagan seems to be leading Mossad more towards a totalitarian structure in his dismissal of younger subordinates to rise in the ranks, in his kill ‘em all campaign against Hamas, and the agency’s general arrogance cripple attempts at peace, the article argues.
The Economist is a centrist leaning international magazine, and so it is important to consider such an opinion in the aftermath of this news-making assasination. In noting that much depends on Mr. Dagan’s succession, a view of a more moderate Mossad is proposed.
