Preventative nuclear war vs. Iran is not a credible threat

Submitted by John in Michigan, USA (United States), Mar 22, 2010 at 19:07

First, let me acknowledge that, as a non-Israeli and non-Jew, I can only imagine what it must be like for a people to contemplate being victims of yet another holocaust, this one nuclear. It must, at times, seem like madness to suggest a wait and see attitude towards this possibility.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that the Israelis, or any modern, moral people, would ever inflict a preventative nuclear campaign against Iran. A preventative nuclear campaign would be, literally, unprecedented in the history of the world. The law of unforeseen consequences would be operating at maximum strength.

At best, it would achieve a decade or so of reprieve, while additional Islamic states, or even a recovered Iran, go nuclear, after which time Israel faces an even worse threat than under the status quo.

Also, in addition to the inevitable boycott, it is reasonable to imagine that regional powers would attempt an air-land-sea blockade of Israel. This blockade could include Turkey, with massive complications for NATO, and could probably count on support from the Chinese, the Russians or perhaps even EU members. The blockade would not be impenetrable, and would have humanitarian exemptions, but it would complicate all manner of things immensely. The US would probably oppose such a blockade, or at least stay neutral. It is hard to imagine this president being willing to actively break it. Is the Israeli economy and population prepared to be nearly self-sufficient in most areas while keeping reserves mobilized and otherwise maintaining a wartime footing?

At worst, the outcome could escalate to a global asymmetrical war, in which the accuracy of Israeli missiles vs. military/industrial targets (and their inevitable civilian collateral) is tested against the accuracy of chemical, biological, or radiological suicide bombers (or possibly even nuclear suicide bombers) vs. civilian and cultural targets in Israel or elsewhere in the world. It seems obvious which sort of targets are more vulnerable.

Is Israel really prepared to take all that risk in return for, at best, a temporary reprieve?

President Obama, or any world leader, understands that the answer is, probably not. Therefore, Pipes' imaginary threat vs. Iran isn't credible, and therefore, the chain of logic that leads us to step 9 (US government steps in), is broken.

Furthermore, Pipes' imaginary conversation with the President contains an eerie echo, unintentionally I presume, of Arafat's infamous threat, "Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand". Echoing Arafat, but replacing the 'freedom' fighter's gun with a nuclear weapon, is not the message of confident strength and firm deterrence that the Israel needs to send. Rather, it seems more like an act of desperation.

I do not think this imaginary conversation would have the effect that Pipes hopes for. ...

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".