ISRAEL’S GOAL  IN BOMBING IRAN                  

by Paul Findley

Will Iran bomb Israel into rubble, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if the Tehran regime is someday armed with nuclear weapons?  Not one of my acquaintances believes that will ever happen, nor do thoughtful Israelis.  But many people believe Israel will soon use conventional bombs to disable Iranian nuclear research facilities.  All of us should ponder why.  

Bombing Iran is high risk.  It will likely mean widening war, not just a skirmish.  It will convince any Iranian doubters their country really needs nuclear weapon protection.  Skillful bombing will delay any Iranian bomb construction for several years, but a determined Iranian government will eventually possess a warhead, even if comes from the black market.  

Iran is a large, proud, well-educated, resourceful and well-armed nation, not a pipsqueak bunch of thugs.  Although Israel has survived by the sword since its founding, thanks mainly to U.S. subservience, trying to immobilize Iran is a mammoth undertaking. 

Iran’s main complaint against Israel is its brutal on-going colonization of mostly-Muslim Palestine, a rebuke applauded by all Muslims and most other people worldwide.  Iran takes a major role supporting resistance to Israeli aggression.  Israel could quiet complaint without firing a shot by withdrawing from illegally held Palestinian land. 

Israel’s immediate goal is to make the United States its partner in a planned conventional assault on Iran.  To that end, Israel’s U.S. lobby is trying to convince the American people Iran is a bad actor and a sinister force in the raging Syrian civil war.  Israel has such mastery of U.S. media this goal may be easily achieved.   

President Obama keeps the war option alive and recently sent Israel a supply of America’s latest in deep penetration bombs, a certain and ominous sign of U.S. complicity if assault occurs.  

My acquaintance with nuclear bombs began long ago.  As a Seabee I  walked through the awful devastation at Nagasaki shortly after U.S. nuclear bombing there ended World War II.  It was a chilling experience.  Years later in Congress, I heard an expert witness predict more than 20 nations had the wherewithal to build a nuclear warhead in a few weeks. 

Fortunately, although nuclear armaments have proliferated, none has been fired in anger since Nagasaki.  This is mainly because a little-noted military doctrine sends a powerful message:  when disputing governments both possess nuclear weapons, neither will commit acts of war against the other.  It is called Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD].  It created a standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, both armed with nukes.   It kept the Cold War from getting hot. 

Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower alluded to this doctrine in l964 during a private discussion I had with him in his Gettysburg office.  He said, “One way to keep European nations from fighting each other would be to supply an atomic [nuclear] warhead to each head of government.”  He was not joking.  His point: nuclear weapons have only one military value, but it is an important one– to deter attack. 

Nukes now provide deterrence from attack only to the nations possessing nuclear warheads or those given special treaty protection by nations possessing these weapons.  Until an international institution strong enough to enforce a worldwide ban on nuclear warheads comes into being, all threatened nations will be tempted to build their own nuclear bomb deterrence. 

Except for Pakistan, all Muslim countries lack such deterrence.  If Iran possessed even one nuclear warhead, Israel would not be beating drums for assault of the Tehran regime. 

Iran finds little sympathy among Americans these days.  Most of them never heard of MAD, but they remember with anger Iran’s illegal imprisonment of U.S. diplomats in the American embassy in Tehran throughout the last 440 days of the Carter administration. 

Few American citizens remember the illegal, bloody 1953 U.S.-British military coup that ousted Iran’s democratically-elected government headed by Mohammad Mossadegh.  Coup forces imprisoned the ousted leader for life, installed the Shah as absolute dictator, and restored British-U.S. exploitation of Iranian oil reserves.  It was the worst chapter of the otherwise admirable Eisenhower administration. 

Iranians also remember U.S. support for Iraq in the war that dictator Saddam Hussein initiated against Tehran in the 1980s.  The Iranian death toll exceeded a half-million. 

If Iran gets a nuke or two, it will have deterrence against attack from any hostile power, including Israel.  Another peaceful standoff would exist.  Gideon Rose, editor of Foreign Affairs, says, “…deterrence is less disastrous than preventive war.”

Will President Obama lead America into a war whose only goal is to deny Iran deterrence from attack? 

All parties, especially Obama and the Republicans campaigning to succeed him, should cease war talk.  The Gulf is already rife with high tension, threats, and hate.  It is so full of competing military vessels they may literally bump us all into an unintended but horrific conflict that could engulf much of the world.                     –0–        850 words


Paul Findley of Jacksonville served 22 years in Congress, 10 of them as senior Republican on the House Middle East Subcommittee.  His latest book is Speaking Out: A congressman’s lifelong battle against bigotry, famine and war.     


  • Ron says:

    The short of it all is that according to a Rasmussen Poll the majority of Americans feel we should stay out of the Middle East. Sixty Seven percent of those polled believe we need to get out and leave these people alone. Stop fighting wars for Israel and let them do thier own fighting. I realize that Congress pretty much does their own thing anymore and the American people mean little or nothing. So maybe it is time we woke up, and start to mean something to those we elect. Don’t elect them anymore. When are we going to get it?

  • Dr. H.S.M.JR., PhD. says:

    Thank you for re-educating so many of our countries finest. MAD is a term that was spawned from US-Soviet tensions,however,it applies to any foreign threat. Iran can not even with Soviet or Chinese backing be considered in any MAD context. Any nuclear offense towards Iran would be subsequent to a planned marshalling of Muslin radicals, the chances for this precursor could not be calculated. Since no simularities exist between WWII i.e Japan and U.S. and internment camps, to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens. So a military action against Iran can be no more than a slap on the wrist, unless we as aNation plan to nuke Iran to Siberia truely a MAD senario.

Leave a Reply