By Donald H. Harrison  

LA JOLLA, Calif.—Israeli political scientist Jacob Goldberg on Thursday evening, April 6, laid out for a large audience at the Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center the strategic considerations that Israeli policy makers face if Iran were to have nuclear weapons.

A former adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Goldberg made a point of following the Israeli policy of neither confirming nor denying his country's nuclear capability. So, throughout his talk, when he referred to Israel having nuclear weaponry, he did so by quoting foreign sources.

For those in the audience who remembered the 1950s and 1960s—and decidedly most did—Goldberg's presentation stirred memories of the tense times between the United States and the Soviet Union, when such terms as "massive retaliation," "second-strike capacity," "mutually assured destruction," "nuclear winter," "throw weights" and "balance of terror" were regular features of the public discourse.  Only now, instead of the United States, "Israel" is the name of the good guy, and instead of the Soviet Union, "Iran" is the arch-enemy.

Goldberg said that whereas other countries with nuclear armaments think of them as deterrents against attack, Iranian leaders have indicated through public statements that they consider an exchange of nuclear attacks to be acceptable policy.  He quoted former Iranian President Akbar Hāschemī Rafsanjānī—whom the West considers a relative
"moderate"—as saying that in such an exchange with Israel, Iran

Murray Galinson, left, welcomes
Israeli political scientist Jacob 
Goldberg to JCC lecturn April 6

(with an estimated population of 70 million and a land mass slightly larger than Alaska's) could continue to survive but Israel (with an estimated population of 6.3 million and a land mass slightly smaller than New Jersey's)  would cease to exist.  In response, said Goldberg, two schools of thought have developed.  The first is to try to persuade Iran to peacefully foreswear its nuclear ambitions.  The second is to respond militarily.

With the United Nations Security Council about to debate the imposition of sanctions on Iran for continuing its program of nuclear arms development, Goldberg noted that both China and Russia may decide to veto sanctions against Iran.  He said Russia's willingness to have a nuclear Iran bordering the six Muslim republics carved from the former Soviet Union seems to be a risky policy for Russia given Iran's interest in exporting its brand of fundamentalist Islam to the rest of the Islamic world.  Perhaps, he suggested, it is a reflection of the desire of Russian President Vladimir Putin to show his country's independence from U.S. policy.

However, for the sake of argument, Goldberg said the audience should suppose that the U.N. Security Council does indeed vote for sanctions.  How effective would they be?  Would the Arab countries neighboring Iran abide?  Would the European countries?  For example, would European countries really be willing to ban air travel to and from Iran?

As a result of such uncertainty, some policy makers believe that Israel must assume that Iran eventually will be able to pursue  its goal of developing a nuclear arsenal, Goldberg said.  

While rhetorically, Iran only talks about defense against the United States and Israel, its nuclear capacity will also dramatically affect such immediate neighbors as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states of Oman, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar, Goldberg said.  This region controls 70 percent of the world's proven oil supplies.  Currently, a country like Kuwait is able to resist when Iran wants it to drop the rate of its oil production.  But will Kuwait and the other countries be able to stand up to a nuclear Iran?  What will happen if Iran has its grip on 70 percent of the world's oil?

Goldberg said Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states can never say so publicly, but they, as much as Israel, are concerned about the threat of Iran, with its Islamic fundamentalist philosophy and opposition to their monarchies.  

Iran has developed a political philosophy that seeks to provide a rationale for removing Israel from the map—as its current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for. It denies there was a Holocaust while adding that if, indeed, Jews were persecuted by the Nazis and their allies, Jews should have been given land in Europe and not in the Middle East. 

In response to Iran's military threat, Israel can further develop defensive missiles, such as the Arrow—designed to knock an incoming missile out of the sky—and offensive missiles, capable of reaching targets in Iran. Relying on defensive measures alone is dangerous because if only one nuclear missile from Iran gets through to Israel, it would be a catastrophe— even if another 19 are successfully knocked out of the sky.

Goldberg said some foreign journals have reported that Israel is purchasing submarines that would be capable of firing nuclear missiles at Iran, even after an Iranian attack on the Israeli homeland.  This so-called "second strike capacity" from somewhere in the ocean would signify to Iranian policy makers that any attack on Israel would result in guaranteed severe damage to Iran.  But, he noted, for those Israelis who survived a nuclear attack the knowledge that major portions of Iran also were destroyed would be "small consolation" for the death and destruction all around them.

Furthermore, he said, with the Islamic fundamentalist philosophy encouraging  the "martyrdom" of suicide bombers, Iran—per the comments of Rafsanjānī—may consider mass martyrdom for a sizeable part of its population to be not only acceptable but possibly desirable

The Bush administration has stated that it would consider an Iranian attack on Israel to be the equivalent of an attack on the United States, and that the U.S. would respond  militarily.  Those who doubt the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrella assume that Iran discounts U.S. willingness to get involved in any more Middle Eastern battles, given U.S. war-weariness in Iraq, Goldberg said.  However, he added, the two situations are far from analogous.  Whereas the Iraq war required the commitment of a large number of U.S. land troops, an Iranian war could be fought with missiles.

Some in Israel say U.S. assurances are not, in themselves, adequate protection   They suggest Israel should seek admittance to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which has a policy of mutual military aid for its members states..

As for the possibility of a  "first strike" response—that is, a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear installations, before Iran manufactures the bomb—Goldberg said some policy makers believe that Iran learned the lesson following Israel's preemptive strike in 1981 on Iraq's nuclear facility near Baghdad.  Instead of having one above-ground facility, Iran is said to have numerous underground facilities spread throughout the country.

Goldberg said, however, that other military strategists believe that Iran's nuclear build up can be delayed by several years if bunker-busting bombs eliminate even a few of these facilities.  

Assuming a decision is made to militarily eliminate Iran's nuclear potential, who would do it?  Would the United States do it in concert with allies?  Or would Israel be put in a position of having to do it alone?  Goldberg reporeted that some say that if Israel were to attack Iran, it would mean that it would face the eternal enmity of the Iranian people—not just of the regime. It would lead to Iranian terrorism against Israel all over the world—such as the attacks last decade against the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

* * *
Goldberg also addressed the problem of growing anti-Semitism which he said has been spreading from both sides of the Atlantic seaboard to the European Continent and on to the east.  In the United States, he said, professors at such institutions as New York University say perhaps it would have been better if Israel had never been created, and in England that sentiment is expressed by saying 1948 (the year of Israel's birth) was a mistake.  A pair of professors at the University of Chicago and Harvard University published an article saying that the pro-Israel lobby  in the United States has distorted its foreign policy.  British academics have called for a boycott of Israel universities, while the Church of England has gotten behind a campaign of divestiture of companies doing business with Israel.  Anti-Israel bashing has become trendy, he said.

Asked to speculate why this is so, Goldberg suggested that it may be a way that Europeans are coping with their brutality toward Jews during the  Holocaust—or their indifference to such brutality.  By painting Israel—and by extension all Jews—as Hitler-like oppressors of the Palestinians, the Europeans seek to persuade themselves that their own countries'  responsibility for the Holocaust makes them no worse than the Jews themselves.  One sees Nazi-like cartoons that showed Israel's Prime Minister (obviously before his coma-inducing stroke) devouring a Palestinian baby.

Added to the anti-Semitism of the European Christians is the anti-Semitism of the many Muslims who have immigrated to Europe from Arab lands. Goldberg said there have been backlashes against Islamists murdering filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (the grandson of Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh) in response to his movie criticizing the treatment of women in Islamic societies.  Similarly, Europeans have been outraged by the worldwide demonstrations and riots sponsored by Islamic groups against Denmark following the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons denigrating the Prophet Mohammad. But these backlashes have not yet produced any corresponding swing among Europeans in favor of Jews and Israelis, he said.

Although Goldberg's lecture primarily focused on negative forces affecting the worldwide Jewish community, he did offer some favorable news concerning the status of Israel's relations with other neighbors in the Middle East.  Peaceful relations with Egypt, although not warm, continue.  Israel even is purchasing natural gas from Egypt.  Jordan and Israel are allies in all but name, having in Palestinian expansionist dreams a common threat. Lebanon, following the withdrawal of 40,000 Syrian troops, is less a threat to Israel than previously—although Hezbollah continues to be a source of irritation on Israel's northern border. Syria is isolated, having tension not only on its southwestern borders with Israel and Lebanon but also on its northern border with Turkey.  Furthermore, Iraq, to the east of Syria, has been eliminated as a major military threat by the U.S. occupation there.

In North Africa, meanwhile, Libya has abandoned its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, and its leader, Moamar Khadaffi, has distanced himself from both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and from association with terrorism, Goldberg said.