Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Iran and Israel

Danielle Pletak writes in yesterday's WashPo on how Iran can't be contained. She argues that we should not assume Israel will take care of the situation if military action is required.

There is a fallacy in this argument. If our "national interest" in keeping Iran nuke free is the protection of Israel, then it is not at all unreasonable to expect Israeli action. Indeed, the rhetoric on mutually assured destruction does apply here - although not to the US. If Iran nukes Israel, there is no doubt that Israel would return the favor (or vice-versa). Of course, Iran doing so is unlikely, since both Iraq and Iran are downwind of Israel. Even if Israel could not get off a missile, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran would all get fall-out from a strike on Israeli soil. It would also kill many Arabs (both Israeli and Palestinian). Only the most doctrinaire neo-con would ever think that Israel is at risk from an Iranian nuke (including one provided to terrorists - since that nuke would still kill Arabs).

1 Comments:

Anonymous paulbern77 said...

Pardon me but somebody has been misinformed. Athough Israel is not currently in danger of a nuke strike from Iran, I think it could conceivably happen when Iran perfects the missile technology it will need to deliver the weapon and I am a liberal Christian. Zionism and Christianity are two concepts that run parallel to one another. For scriptural backup about this please see the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, chapters 13 through 20 (I can provide more scripture if you need it).

9:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home