Jewish Advocates of Pre-Emptive War with Iran Come Under Increasing Criticism

An array of Jewish organizations are in the forefront of promoting pre-emptive action against Iran and are coming under increasing criticism by other voices in the Jewish community.

A fund-raising letter from the World Jewish Congress declares that, “Iran poses the greatest danger to the Jewish people since the Nazis came to power in the 1930s.” An Anti-Defamation League appeal declares that, “ADL has taken a tough and principled stand against those who deal with demagogues like (Iran president) Ahmadinejad ... We’ve put it to the world that Ahmadinejad must be isolated.” A letter from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) reads: “Today the threats to Israel have never been greater ... Iran is speeding up its nuclear weapons program. Now that the Iranians have the capability to enrich uranium, they have constructed more than 2,000 centrifuges and plan to have more than 8,000 centrifuges in operation by the end of this year ... Do your part to stop Iran’s rapidly accelerating nuclear weapons program ...”

Norman Podhoretz, author of the recently published book World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, and long-time editor of Commentary — now promoting his book before Jewish audiences across the country — argues that Iran poses an imminent threat. In an essay in Commentary, he depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler ... whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it ... with a new world order dominated by Iran ... The plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.”

In The New York Times of September 25, the Anti-Defamation League paid for a full page ad about a nuclear-armed Iran, while an American Jewish Congress resolution advocated that “military action” against Iran “be considered.”

In his column in The Forward (Nov. 9, 2007), Leonard Fein writes: “Podhoretz wants to use force now. Others, including a disturbing number of major Jewish organizations, endorse ‘merely’ the threat of force, loudly proclaiming that ‘all options’ must be on the table. Is such a threat a useful deterrent, or does it instead increase Iran’s very real sense of vulnerability, thereby encouraging precisely the behavior it is meant to deter? And is not such talk a way of creeping toward war? Another real war just now? Madness. Yet this is the risk being pressed upon us. Why must Jewish organizations be and be seen as the loudest drum-beaters of all? Why can we not bring ourselves to say that military intervention is not on the table at all? Why not stash it under the table, out of sight, and mount instead a diplomatic assault? Germany, 1938? The more relevant and equally cautionary precedent is Iraq, 2003 — and counting.”

In his recently published memoir Man in the Shadows, Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, says that rather than constantly escalating the rhetoric of confrontation with Iran, the U.S. and Israel should be looking for ways to establish a creative dialogue.

Interviewed by David Ignatius of The Washington Post (Nov. 11, 2007), Halevy said that while Iranian President Ahmadinejad may boast that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, Iran’s ability to do so is “minimal.” He declared that, “Even if the Iranians did obtain a nuclear weapon, they are deterrable; because for mullahs survival and perpetuation of the regime is a holy obligation. We must be much more sophisticated and nuanced in our policies toward Iran.”

Halevy argues for a combination of increased economic pressure and a diplomatic opening that attempts to speak to Iran’s “national aspirations” and its shared interests with America and the West — and even Israel. “Iranians, including those in government, know that acceptance of Israel is not just something they have to accept but something that may bring their deliverance,” Halevy maintains. More