Those who would trade nukes for security deserve neither. (There, ruined that for someone who would have said it in sincerity. )
1. It's naive to think this would stop Iran. 2. Israel has fought several existential wars against regional opponents who have orders of magnitude more manpower. Nukes may be their final bulwark to being overrun. 3. Several powers retain existing claims to the land occupied by Israel; other than some easily-managed Afghans to the east, none do to the land held by Iran. 4. If surrounding governments would preach peace with Isreal rather than death to Israel, perhaps disarmament could be discussed.
This analysis is flawed at several points. 1. Iran with a bomb has no second-strike capabilities only if everyone there is dead. Unless Israel wipes Iran off the map, which there's no evidence they want to do, a nuclear first strike is as stupid an idea as it ever was in the cold war. 2. Saying Iran has been calling for a nuclear-free zone since 1974 is disingenuous since Iran was not an enemy of Israel until 1979 or 1980. How long has the modern regime been doing so? 3. Iran wants a nuclear deterrent against the US; Israel is at best a proxy target for that. Iran won't feel particularly pressured to give up their nuke program if Israel does. 4. If Iran does go nuclear, any disarmament agreement with Iran would be predicated on Iran recognizing Israel, which they will not do.
If Israel gives up its nukes, Iran will say "HA! Now we have them and you don't! Fuck you!" I don't know why anyone would be stupid enough to think unilateral disarmament would result in anything but the other side pointing and laughing, and declaring itself the winner.
Forbin only leftists would be so stupid to think unilateral diasrmament in this situation would work.
I disagree with the article where it seems to imply that a US led war against Iran is OK, i.e. that Israel is OK to go to war with US backing. Given that Foreign Affairs is a mouthpiece of the liberal establishment, this is not supprising.
FTFY. Oh, and Rick, you stupendous imbecile, tell me how many times Israel has nuked somebody. Surrounded by enemies vowing to push them into the sea or wipe them off the map, and yet no mushrooms bloom in the middle east. Dumb-ass.
It is, perhaps, ironic that before the Islamic revolution Iran was the first country in the Middle East to officially recognise Israel. Religion messing things up again...
I don't disagree with you. However, we should note that Iran can make essentially these same arguments about why it should have a nuke. See bellow, a similarly written response to the idea that Iran should give up its nuclear program: We can't really make the argument that Israel has a legitimate interest in maintaining a nuclear arsenal but then claim that Iran does not also have a legitimate interest. Unfortunately, the anti-Iran argument can only be made on the basis that we don't like them (and they don't like us). Rationality is required for any of these disarmament ideas, and it is largely lacking in the M.E. with regard to motivation. But with regard to action that flows from motivation, everybody is pretty rational.
I didn't say that Israel would casually use nukes. But nor would Iran. Their value lies as a deterrent and in exerting leverage.
yeah..... The proof is Israel. If has nukes and Iran doesn't but I can not recall Israel ever saying "HA! Now we have them and you don't! Fuck you!" to Iran.
It's implicit in every threat that they make, and in every strategic calculation. Not that those literal words are ever likely to be used in international affairs.
