There are at least a few controversial declarations and decisions attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, but they do not negate the rich and fascinating career of the man who served as both the youngest and oldest U.S. secretary of defense under two separate administrations. During an interview with this newspaper, the subject of Iran's nuclear program came up. "Good God," Rumsfeld said about Iran. He sighed, continuing, "I think of you, those who are in the Israeli government, who see the intelligence reports. You have to consider the timing and examine the dangers and decide what is in the Israeli people's best interest and what needs to be done. I don't envy you." One of the greatest achievements of Israel's foreign policy in recent years is in getting the West to understand and connect to the struggle against Iran's nuclear program. In Washington, Paris, London and Berlin, they view Iran's nuclear efforts as a threat to world peace and also as a danger for their own citizens. Even in the Arab world, "partners" have joined the struggle, both overtly and covertly, with respect to the nuclear project of the ayatollah's regime. Six Persian Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, are disinclined toward the new, distinctly possible reality: On the one side, a weak and divided Iraq lacking a U.S. presence and on the other, a nuclear Iran. This horrific scenario is actually taking shape. Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox! WikiLeaks documents have allowed us to get a picture of what is happening behind the scenes: The Saudi royalty was seemingly fearful for the fate of the Palestinians, an issue which threatens world peace, but in actuality the Saudis understand that the real threat is Iran and the bomb. Deterrent force necessary Washington cannot ignore the interests of its allies in this region, especially in the wake of Mubarak's abandonment. The revelation on Sunday from The New York Times was not surprising at all. The Obama administration says it plans to strengthen the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf overall, especially in Kuwait, after its withdrawal from Iraq by the end of this year. Possible reasons: the deterioration of the security situation in Iraq or "confrontation with Iran." I am not sure whether there was a "public debate" in the U.S. about this before the report from The New York Times, known to be liberal and a supporter of the Obama administration. U.S. citizens are called to elections once every four years and that grants the president the power to be the commander in chief of the armed forces. If he decided to reinforce the army in the Gulf, it is his prerogative. Meanwhile, Israel is the only country that the regime in Tehran does not recognize. The "Zionist regime" has no right to exist, says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This from a man who helps terrorists against Israel, denies the Holocaust and never misses an opportunity to call for Israel's destruction. His very clear statements require no interpretation. How ironic is it then that the very state that is most directly and exclusively threatened by Iran, the country whose very existence is doubted by Iran and whose power to deter is the very thing that keeps it alive, must now specifically deal with an abundance of publications in certain local media sources about the possible "day after" the attack. It is not even clear if Israel will attack Iran, but apparently the disastrous consequences are already clear. But I am not exactly sure anymore, in light of all the different commentaries on the subject, if the average Israeli citizen understands whether a nuclear Iran or a bombed-out Iran is preferable. Could it be that the revolutionary spirit of the times pervaded our media with respect to security issues? It is true that these days we are able to select the next best chef, the hottest model or the best socialite via our cellular telephone. Perhaps we should also ask Haim in Ashkelon, Dor from Kiryat Shmona or Ran from Tzahala what they think about the idea of attacking Iran, when to attack and maybe even from which direction the planes should approach? There is no doubt that this is the most difficult and crucial decision facing Israel since its establishment. We have already seen this movie twice, however, with Iraq and Syria, according to foreign sources, but this time it seems even more complex and difficult. We survived September Around the world people are less and less apt to believe that Iran's nuclear project is intended for civilian purposes. Soon the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will publish a report that further exposes Iran's true intentions. This is the root of the desire to block this program. The paradox is that in this country, which is most threatened by Iran, there are many explanations why the military option is dangerous and why, therefore, we must reject it. Over the past decade, Israeli governments fought three military campaigns: the Second Intifada, the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which as it turned out later actually damaged our credibility as a force of deterrence. The trick is, however, to win the battle without even starting it. Anyone who claims that we have to take the threat of attacking Iran off the list of possible options in the name of Israeli security actually encourages the Iranians to pick up the pace, without fear of our potential attack; and, rather paradoxically, increases the risk for our safety. Iranians must know that Israel has achieved many things throughout its existence, and that there is nothing we consider to be "mission impossible." This is how it has always been. Make no mistake: The greatest threat to the security of Israeli citizens is not its government, but rather Iran's. It is preferable for us if Iran thinks, as Paulo Coelho wrote in "The Alchemist," "What happens once will never happen again. But what happens twice will surely happen a third time." Because that is what might actually stop them, with or without an attack, rather than apocalyptic scenarios about how much we suffer the day after. P.S.: Just to remind everyone, we survived September. Most of these same "forecasters" about the "day after" also predicted that we would have a horrific political tsunami in September. Today marks the end of October. Perhaps these "forecasters" need to learn the lesson-
Like our newsletter? 'Like' our Facebook page!
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו