Whether with contrived enthusiasm or calculated strategy, Iran is “gathering new forces for a great blow” against Israel. For the moment, at least, this means a resumption of direct war with Israel. This time around, however, the conflict could be protracted and also coincide with creation of an irredentist Palestinian state.
Most worrisome would be a war in which Iran was “already nuclear.” It follows from such interrelated expectations that Israel would be best served by waging any re-started war against a still pre-nuclear national enemy. How, more specifically, should Jerusalem proceed? What steps and calculations could best ensure the tiny state’s survival? In this connection, it ought never to be overlooked that Israel is less than half the size of America’s Lake Michigan.
What about “simply” avoiding further war with Iran, any war and in any form? In the best of all possible worlds, such avoidance would represent the preferred Israeli option, but this is not yet the “best of all possible worlds.” Accordingly, Israeli thinkers and planners will have to choose their country’s best available strategies from a widening range of determinably bad options. In the final analysis, this should mean choosing to wage war against Iran before that jihadist adversary could “become nuclear.
” Though counter-intuitive, it would not be gainful or cost-effective for Israel to delay new rounds of direct warfare with Iran. In present and foreseeable circumstances, .
