Currently, the Israeli political scene is focusing on domestic subjects such as speculations about whether there might be early elections later this year, the State Comptroller’s report on the Carmel Fire in December 2010, and debates on gender discrimination against women as well as the integration of the ultraorthodox minority (cf. for instance Barak: Draft new bill for Tal Law, ynetnews.com, January 17, 2012). However, above all these concerns, a more worrying question is looming: How will the Israeli government react to the Iranian nuclear weapons program? Liat Collins has called it the “The ‘Will they, won’t they?’ guessing game” (see My Word: Ban and the bomb, Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2012.)

Of course, this is not a novel issue in Israel; it has been recurring for quite some time. But at the beginning of February this year, it looks more serious: An Israeli air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities seems to be a more realistic scenario. How come? Liat Collins assumes that two major causes brought that question to the fore again. One is what she calls the “herd mentality – once one journalist started on the subject, the others followed”. But how did it all start? This brings her to the other cause – the “Herzliya phenomenon”, as she dubs it.

The Twelfth Herzeliya Annual Conference where national and international leaders as well as high-ranking foreign policy experts from all over the world met to discuss this year’s subject, “In The Eye of Storms: Israel & the Middle East”, took place in the very beginning of the month. In his speech at the conference, Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a dramatic appeal to the Israeli and to the world public: “Those who say ‘later’ may find that later is too late”, and he added that “it is crucial to stop Iran from becoming nuclear”. By many listeners this was understood as a serious warning of a potential Israeli strike. In his turn, President Shimon Peres expressed his support for Barak’s strategic analysis by emphasizing that it was “the duty of the international community to prevent the combination of evil and the atom”. He further argued that “Iran is not a threat only for Israel. But it represents a real danger to the whole humanity”.

In a recent Haaretz op-ed, titled Time to be afraid, Gideon Levy assumes that today the Israeli population is not worried by what might happen with regard to Iran. According to him, most Israelis seem to be rather confident in their leaders. He strongly criticizes the fact that they are likely, as in the past, to allow their government going to war. Indeed, the Israeli opposition seems to be rather weak on this point. The Jerusalem Post reported on February 10 (see TA rally against attack on Iran musters 24 protesters) that a demonstration against a potential Israeli attack on Iran recently took place in front of the Defense Ministry, gathering less than thirty protesters.

Yet, a Joint Israeli-Palestinian Poll conducted in December 2011 with the support of KAS indicates that the Israeli public opinion is divided on the question of whether to support or to oppose the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities: A relative majority (47%) comes out in favour, but a strong minority (41%) is against it. At the same time, a three-quarters majority (76%) of Israelis expects and fears that Iran’s allies, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, would retaliate as a consequence of an Israeli military strike against their patron. This view is confirmed by an NBC News report (see also Report: Israel’s attack on Iran to use missiles, planes, elite troops, Israel Hayom online, February 5, 2012) according to which “Israeli intelligence agencies believe Iran’s retaliation would mainly come via its proxy, the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. In any scenario, Israel understands there would be Israeli casualties in the aftermath of an assault on Iran.”

While Iran fiercely warns the United States and Israel, the general impression that one can get is that the Israeli leaders are more than ever considering an attack by June this year, as, for instance, Shlomo Tsenza and Lilah Shoval write in Israel Hayom (February 3, 2012): “The more time goes by, it seems that in Israel patience has been exhausted by the international dawdling with regard to an active operation against Iran.”

How seriously should one take all these hints, insinuations, rumors, speculations, and warnings? A ynet article (Report in the U.S: This is how Israel will strike against Iran) suggests: “The attack is apparently still not approved, but in the United States plans are already being made how it would be carried out.” And here again, the NBC News report is mentioned with a list of weapons and other military operations Israel would probably use, such as Jericho II missiles and unmanned air vehicles. Most remarkably, foreign and defense policy experts believe that “both Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates would support the move, as they are also threatened by a nuclear Iran. As for Turkey, officials are expecting more of a muted response.” (See Officials discuss Israel-Iran showdown, ynetnews.com, February 3, 2012.)

The current debate has also made it clear that Israel is confronting a reluctant international opinion, opposing an Iranian nuclear armament on the one hand, but still refusing to pre-emptively attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on the other. Most Western leaders prefer to wait and see whether the non-military international sanctions imposed on Iran will have an impact on the Mullah regime: “Leon Panetta, along with US President Barack Obama warned Israeli officials against opting for a military offensive in Iran, saying it would jeopardize the international sanctions program and other non-military efforts.” (See Panetta believes Israel will strike Iran soon, ynetnews.com, February 3, 2012.) A recent statement by the German Defense Minister, Thomas de Maizière, shows the agreement on this point within the North Atlantic Alliance. He is quoted as saying that a “success of an Israeli strike on Iran nuclear facilities is highly unlikely and (will cause) obvious political damage”. (See Germany: Success of strike on Iran unlikely, ynetnews.com, February 10, 2012.)

However, international criticism does no seem to deeply impress Israeli decision makers. They have little faith in the efficacy of non-military sanctions, and their point of view is probably best summed up by what Maj. General (res.) Ilan Biran said in Herzliya: “You have to attack while you defend.” Israel’s deterrence strategy is reflected by an old medical proverb which describes Israel’s long-standing attitude on security issues: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Adi Singer