The few discussions I've had with Israeli officials, I've always been amazed at the gap between our understanding of the threat from a nuclear Iran and theirs. For instance, I've heard numerous Israeli officials describe Iran as deterrable. One Israeli nuclear official suggested that while the Iranian leadership might not fear the destruction of Tehran, targeting the holy city of Qom could achieve the desired effect. In other words, everyone is deterrable, you just need to figure out what your enemy holds most dear.
The reason for this rhetorical approach is that surveys of Israeli public have shown just how vulnerable the country is even to Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon. A not insignificant number of the country's citizens might emigrate -- and these would presumably the country's best and brightest and wealthiest. Indeed, today Jeffrey Goldberg posts an interview with Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he reports that Israel's new government believes this is one of Iran's key aims: "The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel's most talented citizens into leaving their country."
Given that, one would expect Netanyahu to try to calm the fears of his citizens in light of the very real possibility that Iran will go nuclear regardless of any action by the United States or Israel. Instead, Israel's new Prime Minister hypes the threat. He tells Goldberg:
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran."...
"...Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran's militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they'd force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.
"Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world's oil supply. Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies. Finally, you'd create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area-nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don't say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this, that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening."
The Olmert government tried to walk a fine line between scaring the Israeli people and increasing international pressure and domestic support for tough action against Iran. Netanyahu appears determined to deal with the problem head on. It's not clear that Israel can or will strike against Iran's nuclear program, but it would be an enormous mistake to write off this type of language as mere bluster. If Netanyahu thinks a nuclear-armed Iran is really that bad, then he must do everything in his power to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
