A Bully in the Yard: An Analysis of the Israel-Iran Situation

The following is not a d'var Torah, but rather my own opinions on the tense situation that exists right now in the Middle East because of Iran's nuclear armament goals and Israel's right to defend itself.


A Bully in the Yard: An Analysis of the Israel-Iran Situation
By Rabbi Boaz D. Heilman
February 21, 2012

Everybody wants to be a prognosticator today—but no one can be, at least not when it comes to the Middle East. The region has been unpredictable and explosive from before World War I yet, and it’s only gotten worse since.

The reason you don’t want to think about what tomorrow—or the next few weeks—might bring is that any way you look at it, it can’t be good.

The news is undeniably scary with threats and counter-threats, with stories of assassinations and terror. The media have been full of columnists trying to analyze the Iran-Israel situation and to predict its outcome. No matter how they chart events and their outcome, the end result is always disastrous.

What some people call saber rattling is much worse than just that; it’s actually a dangerous game of brinksmanship, with Iran pressing hard to achieve its nuclear ambitions and taunting Israel to react.

For many reasons—primarily because it is run by a regime rooted in medieval thinking—Iran’s economy has been inching steadily closer to catastrophic failure. Predictably, its titular head, Ahmedinejad, has found Israel to be a convenient scapegoat and for several years now has been threatening to destroy it. Simultaneously, he has been pushing ahead with nuclear development leading toward production of nuclear weapons.

Couple that with the fact that Iran already has missiles that are able to reach just about any point in Israel and Europe and is currently developing an ICBM missile with the capability of reaching targets in the US, and what you have is a very dangerous situation indeed.

Israel is not alone in feeling threatened. The memory of the Holocaust and World War II is still raw enough in most people’s minds to realize that when a country proclaims its intent to destroy another sovereign nation, and is shown to be hard at work developing the capability to do just so, it’s probably a good thing to see it as a serious and valid threat.

So far, international trade sanctions and periodic—but futile—inspections by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) have not stopped Iran. The question is, what will?


For quite some time now, Israel—which, understandably, has the most to fear—has been talking about carrying out a preemptive strike. There is reason to believe Israel. It has carried out such strikes in the past, the first in 1981 when it destroyed a French-built nuclear facility in Iraq, and more recently in 2007, when it destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction in Syria. In the case of Iran, however, the circumstances are different.

First, Iran’s nuclear facilities—constructed with Russian aid since 1992—are dispersed throughout the country. Secondly, it has buried some of them deep underground. Third, Iran has the capability of striking back, with possibly catastrophic results.

It is estimated that the State of Israel currently has 200,000 missiles aimed against it. Close to 30,000 of them are in the hands of the Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon. Hamas, Iran’s proxy army in Gaza, also holds a frightening arsenal of missiles, some of them with the ability to hit targets 30 miles away, at the outskirts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel’s most heavily populated cities. There is no question in anyone’s mind that, if a preemptive attack on Iran is carried out, Hezbollah and Hamas will not hesitate to join Iran in unleashing their full fire power. That, of course, will lead to a full out regional war as Syria and Egypt might wish to deflect attention from their own political and social problems and join other Arab states that might see this as their best opportunity yet to destroy Israel.

It is possible, of course, that a successful preemptive attack on Iran will destroy its nuclear facilities. It is just as possible, however, that such an attack will not be conclusive and will result only in delaying Iran from reaching its goals for a couple of years. In either case, a counterattack against Israel as well as the United States (termed by Iran “the little Satan” and “the great Satan”) is certain to follow. In an election year, such an attack on the US or its staunchest ally will not be met with silence, and the US will find itself in yet another conflict with an Islamic country—one it can hardly afford economically or diplomatically. Israel, naturally, will be blamed, giving anti-Semites all over the world the “proof” they need for their claim that the Jewish state wields undue control over US foreign policy.

Additionally, Iran has the ability (and has already threatened) to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which pass those giant supertankers laden with much of the oil used by the western world. Iran’s navy also made its presence known in the Mediterranean Sea, with several of its vessels recently visiting Syria (and possibly supplying Bashar al-Assad with more weapons to enable him to further bombard his own cities). The intent behind this display of power by the Iranian government cannot—and should not—be underestimated.

In consideration of world-wide disastrous consequences, the United States and Britain—among other European nations—recently called on Israel to refrain from attacking Iran. President Obama—swallowing his pride and his much-publicized dislike of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—will certainly deliver a similar message at a meeting with Netanyahu scheduled for March 5.


What will happen next? If more countries adhere to tougher international sanctions against Iran, it is possible that Iran will change its course, and then the world will heave a sigh of relief. But such a rosy outcome isn’t very likely. The current mission of the IAEA is doomed to fail as have all previous missions, as inspectors are not allowed to visit and inspect some of Iran’s most secretive sites. And so far, despite economic sanctions and international warnings, Iran has managed to carry on its nuclear enrichment work unhindered. Even if Europe and the United States are successful in convincing Israel to refrain from carrying out a preemptive raid, even if a full-out war is temporarily averted, covert operations are bound to continue. As the world’s foremost exporter of terror, at some point Iran might conceivably succeed and deliver a strike that will call for response either from Israel or the US. And if that happens, we’re right back to square one, with less recourse than ever to avert an all-out war, only this time against a regime now equipped with nuclear warheads.


And if nothing at all is done, if Iran successfully develops and builds nuclear weapons, what will stop it then from actualizing further ambitions of regional and global dominance? It’s a nightmare scenario no less dangerous from the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and possibly even more so.


But all this is speculation. There’s no way of knowing what will happen next. Hopefully the international pressure on Iran will succeed; perhaps the Ayatollah Khameini—the real source of power in Iran and no lover of Ahmedinejad—will succeed in his efforts to marginalize Ahmedinejad and remove from him any leftover delusions of executive powers. In the best of all worlds, a social-media-driven revolution such as those that recently took place in Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere in the Arab world will help restore power to the Iranian people and sanity to the region. Only time will tell. Until then, we will sit nervously and watch as the world tries political maneuvering, a process that history has shown to be much less successful than simply standing up to a bully and putting him in his place to begin with.
It might remain Israel’s obligation to do just that, despite the dangers inherent in such a move, and it might just have to happen sooner than later.


©2012 by Boaz D. Heilman