With all the talk and speculation about a nuclear Iran, it is impossible, living in Israel – especially in the centre of Tel Aviv (the intersection of the lines forming the “X” on Ahmadinejad's map is widely believed to be Melchett) – not to ponder the possible, dreaded scenarios.
No one here appears to be any the wiser about the likelihood, or the timing, of an Israeli attack on Iran. And those who are certainly don't talk about it. What I did, however, hear about a year ago – from a journalist who claims to "know people" in "defence circles" – is the following:
The US State Department has resolved that it is not in America's interests to spearhead, participate in, or even to be seen to be behind, an attack on Iran. It prefers to leave the Israelis and Iranians to their own devices, to fight matters out – to the death, if necessary – between themselves (ironically, the quintessentially Jewish "don't get involved" approach).
On learning of this decision, Israel – in order to force America's hand and deter it from a policy of isolationism – informed the US that, if Israel were to suffer an obliterative (could there be any other for a country of this size?) nuclear attack, it would use its nuclear-armed submarines to take the rest of the world down with it.
Farfetched, I know, but it does possess a certain cold logic. And, if Iran were to strike first, part of me certainly would want Israel to at least take out all of those enemies that have made our lives so difficult for the past sixty-odd years.
My guess is that the reality will be somewhat of an anticlimax. On turning on Sky News, on waking up on one seemingly ordinary morning, we will be greeted with the news that the deed has been done: Israel and/or the US has bombed Iran.
But then it'll be "nappy time": Will Iran still have the capability to return the favour? Would there be a warning? And, if so, how much?
Not living in a modern building, my apartment does not have a mamad (reinforced room). And, despite having lived on Melchett during the Second Lebanon War, I have absolutely no idea where the nearest communal shelter is.
Anyway, given a few minutes or thirty, I would still choose to do the same thing . . . and it does not entail squeezing into a dark, dank monolith with scores of platzing Israelis.
Being single, however, the big question would be "With whom?" Pardon the egocentrism, but, if the worst were to happen, it should at least be at a time when I am in a relationship. I mean imagine having to work through lists of past dates, flings and girlfriends in the knowledge that there is a nuclear missile on its inexorable way.
Although at least, in the latter scenario, there would be no need to pretend . . . you know, that you really do love them, that you miss them, or just really want to catch up. You’d just scream "Get yerself over here, girl . . . and QUICK!"
And, if no one were available, well . . . it would just have to be Mrs. Palmer and her five lovely daughters. Now that would be a depressing final act.
http://melchettmike.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/mahmoud-and-mrs-p-reflectio...
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.