Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd of worshippers on Aug. 17 that “the existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to all humanity.”   Two days later, marking the end of Ramadan, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called Israel a “cancerous tumour at the heart of the Islamic world” that must be destroyed. General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a commander in Iran’s Revolution Guards Corps, declared that Israel would be “wiped out of the map and thrown into the trash bin of history forever.”

Israel’s UN mission called on the Security Council “and all responsible members of the international community to condemn Iranian hate speech without any further delay.”  The U.S. did, while UN secretary Ban Ki-moon issued a statement calling the Iran’s tirades merely “offensive and inflammatory.”  He asked Iran to tone it down, reminding them that according to the UN Charter it’s forbidden for one member state to call for the destruction of another.  But no moves are afoot to expel Iran from the UN for repeatedly violating this pledge (or to hold it to account for its incitement to genocide — something Irwin Cotler has drew attention to in the Aug. 14 National Post).  At the same time Ki-moon indicated, in the face of Israeli objections, that he planned to attend a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Tehran.  So much for isolating Iran internationally.

 Discussions about whether Iranian leaders, transfixed also by Holocaust denial other antisemitic delusions, are “rational” or “irrational” are beside the point.  As George Jonas put it in the National Post: “A fellow who says he’s out to destroy you is out to destroy you. Believe him.”  If Jews have learned anything from their great but tragic history it is this.

In this toxic climate a public debate has grown in Israel about how best to respond (or better: how in the least bad way to respond) to the Iran threat.  There are no good options.  It is clear that sanctions and diplomacy are not working. Not only are these measures not stopping Iran from pursuing its illicit nuclear program, they’re not even slowing it down.  Israel never thought these measure would.  Nonetheless, others in the international community are urging Israel to give them more time, while Israel argues that this allows Iran more time to develop and hide its nuclear assets, shielding them from attack.

Here’s where the debate in Israel stands: It is intolerable to live under the threat of a nuclear srtike by Iran.  On the other hand, if Israel launches a preventive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the experts agree that Israel alone won’t be able to destroy them; it will only be able to set back the Iranian nuclear program by a year or two but will also likely incur Iranian, and Hezbollah, counter-strikes.  Can Israel afford to act alone?  Can it count on the U.S. whose president has promised, more than once, that he will not alow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Absent an agreement with the U.S., a plurality of Israelis including military and strategic experts don’t want Israel to act alone at this time.

In the Aug. 22 Globe and Mail, Paul Koring noted that “despite the sabre-rattling few analysts expect an imminent Israeli strike.”  In Foreign Policy magazine, former U.S. Mideast peace negotiator Aaron David Miller concurred, saying that an Israeli strike is unlikely before the American presidential elections in November.  Still, he concluded, ”If you’re betting on a war with Iran, think year’s end or early next…Ultimately, Israel will act.”

Paul Michaels is the Director of Research and Media Relations for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

For past “According to Reports” click here