The problems of a mammoth

WASHINGTON - Several weeks ago, a gloomy conversation took place between an Israeli visitor and American staffer at the office of a veteran and hawkish senator. "What about Iran?" "Iran is a very serious problem. We cannot allow it to have nuclear weapons." "And do you think real sanctions will be imposed against it?" "Maybe. The possibility exists." "And would they help?" "I don't believe so." "Would America attack?" "I don't think so. The chances are slim."

There you have it, on one foot - the entire canon of the Iranian crisis: the threat, the means of pressure, the predicted outcome. Not a single American analyst would be unable to explain the enormous danger to the region and entire world that is posed by Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms. Nevertheless, the American explanation sounds different than the Israeli explanation; it is cold, calculated and remote. And devoid of any sense of existential fear.

If it is difficult to imagine the United States using force against Iran, herein lies the reason. Although it has no interest in seeing an Iranian finger on the button that controls a nuclear device, and it comprehends and has processed the difficulties and complications stemming from such a situation - it would be hard to find anyone in America who wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, and who harbors the fear that America might be destroyed sometime soon.

Evidently, there is an unbridgeable gap between the Israeli and American attitude to the Iranian threat. About six months ago, in an interview with this writer in Haaretz, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described the disparity by citing a line by the Czech writer Milan Kundera. "A small nation can disappear, and it knows it." He expressed himself similarly with regard to former president Bill Clinton in the days of Oslo, and about his promise to Israel, that "it would take risks, and we would support."

This is the abyss that cannot be bridged between the consciousness of an American president and that of an Israeli leader: there are risks that a superpower like America can take, but which for a state like Israel are much more complex. There are situations that an American president is unable to imagine, but are practically the daily bread of an Israeli leader, the product of a familiar and painful history.

The moment is growing close, it seems, at which the U.S. leaders are likely to reach that certain point in their attitude to Iran - the moment at which the president's "we will by no means permit" will turn into a traditional capitulation in the form of "the Security Council has again proven that it is incapable of doing anything."

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan shuttled around the Middle East last week like a character from the comedy series Seinfeld, the show that mocked itself, since it was "a show about nothing." In Israel, Annan did not procure agreement to remove the siege on Lebanon; in Lebanon, he did not get an agreement for negotiations with Israel; in Syria, he received a guarantee that even he doesn't believe in - that Syria will protect the border against smuggling; in Iran, he made no progress - not even a modicum - in the nuclear talks. The Iranians even threw in an extra little barb when they announced during his visit the formation of an expert committee that would look into the "myth of the Holocaust."

Once again, the link that is obvious to all was clearly outlined: Iran-nuclear power-Holocaust. "Godwin's law" - the law, named for its author, Mike Godwin, one of the more clever writers about Internet culture - states that: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." In Iran's case, even a brief discussion is adequate. Nevertheless, all the analogies that link Iran with the Holocaust refer to that country's threats to destroy Israel, not to the danger of its destroying America.

Four months ago, the cover of the weekly National Journal featured a skull adorned with the same spikes that grace the Statue of Liberty. "If Iran got the bomb: Could Washington coexist with Tehran if the mullahs got nukes?" ran the headline. The lengthy article offered a hesitant "yes" in response. Suitable deterrents, said the article, could prevent Iran from going wild. America can evidently learn to live with it. It would most certainly not be destroyed. Could Israel draw the same lesson?

This is the beginning of a discussion that will gain momentum as it becomes increasingly clear that the campaign to force Iran's hand is ineffective. The debate will weigh possible pros and cons, and consider the line of political credit of the current president. Therefore, the date is also drawing near on which any country that feels threatened will have to weigh its own pros and cons. Each sovereign state will have to tabulate its own account, every nation and its leaders. It makes sense to prepare for that day - operationally, yes, but also, and to no lesser degree, mentally. Because the moment could come when the interests of the American mammoth are no longer those of the Israeli fly that sits on its back. And if and when that day comes, it will be very frightening.