A different game plan?

Submitted by Kevin (United States), Nov 6, 2005 at 21:18

I would think that this unequivocal pronouncement would give Israel the right under international law to launch a preemptive attack, including a nuclear attack, on Iranian nuclear facilities if Iran is that close to having an operable weapon. However, may I suggest -- and I am completely ignorant here -- that something else may be going on. Iran is bidding against nuclear-armed Pakistan to be leader of the new Muslim world order. In order to do so, Iran must develop nuclear weapons. This, I would think, makes Pakistan a bit nervous. So Iran proclaims that its nuclear weapons are intended for Israel, ergo, anyone who opposes Iran's having them is anathema.

There is no doubt that Iran would like to see Israel destroyed. As someone on this site pointed out, however, nuclear weapons on "Palestine" offer an equal-opportunity holocaust. Does Iran really propose to slaughter hundreds of thousands of fellow-Muslims? The very victims of Zionist imperialism the Muslim world has sworn to avenge?

So what if Israel, rather than attacking Iran, replied calmly that it did not take the threat seriously because of the Palestinian Arabs who would necessarily die in a nuclear attack and whom Iran has made no attempt to remove from danger?

That would leave Iran with three choices: (a) acknowledge it is indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians, and that it will martyr them, willingly or not, to the cause; (b) begin efforts, with or without the cooperation of other Muslim nations, to remove and resettle Arabs from Israel/Palestine; or (c) by doing neither, tacitly concede its weapons are really intended as a deterrent against, or threat to, Pakistan.

If Iran chooses option (a), it instantly loses any bid for leadership. Whom else might Iran deem expendable for the greater glory of Islam and Iran? If Iran chooses option (b) and begins efforts to induce Palestinian Arabs to leave Palestine/Israel and to resettle them elsewhere, Israel can sit back and watch its enemies solve its biggest problem, and when transfer is perhaps 2/3 completed, attack Iran, since, of course, it is still threatened. If Iran chooses option (c), Pakistan, with a little help from its friends, might well do what is necessary to eliminate the threat, militarily or otherwise. With Iran's threat to Israel shown to be a bluff, Iran might be sufficiently isolated that enough economic pressure could be applied to induce it to give up its nuclear weapons program without military action.

Option (c) is the only plausible alternative, but first Israel needs to call the bluff.

Sound plausible to anyone who knows anything?

---

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".