Israel should rethink strike on Iran

t is September 2012, and the apocalypse is coming.

Many would rather consider this prophecy as nothing more than a fairly disturbing fantasy; however, considering that the world might actually be on the brink of nuclear war, the Mayans might be right after all.

According to nuclear inspectors, Iran, as of late August, has installed three-quarters of the centrifuges it needs to produce nuclear power. These centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium, are located near the holy city of Qom.

Iran claims that it is not attempting to create an atom bomb, but rather to generate electricity without having to use its oil supply.

However, this news is still worrisome to most countries, especially Israel, a country Iran has threatened to destroy on multiple occasions.

So it is no real surprise that Israel is considering a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities—a fact confirmed by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israeli leaders fear that as Iran’s facilities have doubled their number of underground centrifuges, Iran is arriving at a “zone of immunity” where an airstrike would not prevent them from building a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu and Israeli defense minister Ehmud Barak view the nuclear programs of Iran as a threat to Israel’s survival.  Israel has repeatedly threatened Iran with military action—an act that mirrors the events leading up to Israel’s bombing of Iraq and Syria’s nuclear facilities years ago.

Netanyahu will speak at the U.N. General Assembly about Iran’s nuclear weapons in September.

Despite the seemingly extreme measures Israel is taking, the country’s sentiments are understandable. In fact, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently called Israel a “cancerous tumor that will soon be excised.”

However, the consequences of an attack on Iran’s facilities must be considered. Such an action would probably fail to annihilate Iranian nuclear weapons, considering that most of them are underground. While Iran may be set back by several years, the backlash is almost guaranteed to be extremely severe.

Additionally, this potential war would not stay within Iran and Israel; it would engulf Western countries as well. First of all, Iran would respond with erratic warfare—not just aimed at Israel, but Israel’s allies as well. Iran also has the power to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which currently pass 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, and will thus rack up oil prices—a blow the U.S. economy does not need. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Hezbollah, a militant group with the power to commence terrorist attacks across the continent.

The most blatant reason this attack really should be reconsidered is the dissent of the Israeli people. Fifty-eight percent of the nation is against the assault, even without the support of the United States. Fifty-eight percent.

Now, the United States, along with the other Western countries, is attempting to resolve the matter through diplomacy, placing economic strain on Iran in hopes that it will halt its nuclear production. America does not need another war in the Middle East and really should not interfere in a preventive war. 

Additionally, the entire concept of preventive war is illogical. It is essentially the same as punching another person because you think that someday they might punch you first.

Their logic is flawed, and the consequences could be dire. This apocalypse does not need to happen.