Madmen

The stolen Iranian election, and the ugly events that followed it, cannot help but raise new fears about the possibility that Iran will soon join the list of nuclear armed states: the United States, United Kingdom, Israel, France, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.

These fears are nothing new for the neoconservatives who have beaten the drums for war with Iran for years. They are gung-ho for war with Iran just as they were gung-ho for war with Iraq; they have little regard for the internal situation within the country or whether Iran is actually seeking nuclear weapons rather than industrial nuclear power. Their ardor for war is visceral.

In fact, virtually all of the major neocons expressed support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June presidential election because they openly feared that his defeat would legitimize a diplomatic approach to Iran. But that does not stop them from using their favored candidate's unholy triumph as justification for a war they would champion regardless of who won the election.
 
Their hypocrisy is astounding, as is their sheer chutzpah. One would think that after their Iraq disaster, they would feel chastened. So many dead, so little accomplished in a war that they promised would be a cake walk. But, no, they still loudly clamor for wars that others fight. Like American Communists back in the 1930's, they have their line and nothing will make them deviate from it-except a new line.
 
It is important, however, that we try to look at the Iranian threat, such as it is, without focusing unduly on those who endlessly hype it.

And the fact is that the Iranian threat appears more serious today than it did before the election because the regime looks significantly more deranged in July than it did in May. It is simply no longer possible to argue with confidence that Tehran is rational and would accordingly refrain from using a nuclear weapon on Israel. The election fiasco put that argument to rest. Israel's concerns are legitimate.
 
No, I do not believe that Israel should preemptively attack Iran. I think an Israeli attack would be disastrous, not least for Israel's long-term prospects for survival.

More immediately, it would jeopardize the United States' interests in the region-above all the lives of 130,000 Americans just next door. Nor would an Israeli attack end Iran's nuclear program. At best, it would slow things down. Diplomacy (with teeth), on the other hand, is infinitely more likely to prevent development of Iranian nuclear weapons. 
 
But the United States must do what it can to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons because it is impossible to trust that the Iranian regime will not take actions that others consider suicidal. Simply put, the current regime and its front man, Ahmadinejad, are not rational.
 
If the people running Iran were rational-if they were primarily interested in preserving their regime-they would not have stolen the election for Ahmadinejad (with a fabricated landslide, no less).

They would have understood, having hand-picked Ahmadinejad's main opponent, Mir Hussein Mousavi, that he would threaten neither the continuation of the regime nor Iran's nuclear program. They would have understood that their regime would be more, not less, secure if they allowed an election that looked relatively free. 

Instead, they stole the election, sent thugs out to crush demonstrators, and probably ensured that their regime would not survive in the long-term. Their behavior on all matters relating to the election was irrational and just plain stupid.
 
If they were rational-if they were interested only in preserving their regime-they would either have dumped Ahmadinejad or, at the very least, prohibited him from blabbing about the Holocaust. Every time Mad Mahmoud indulges in his penchant for Holocaust denial, he makes the regime look ridiculous.
 
Yes, he's a fool. This is a man who told an audience at Columbia University that there are no gay people in Iran (at the same time that his regime was executing gay teenagers). But even a fool can be made to understand that mocking the slaughter of the Jews does not advance Iran's interests. On the contrary, it makes Iran look like something it isn't-a successor in spirit to Nazi Germany.
 
If the people running Iran were rational-if they were interested only in preserving their regime-the people running Iran would not allow anyone in authority to threaten Israel's existence.
 
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, like other Israeli hawks, pretends that Israel is helpless in the face of Iranian saber rattling. But he knows that it isn't and the people running Iran also know it.
 
The Israelis will do whatever it takes to preserve their state. It is not only Likudniks-or even Israelis-who pledge that "Masada will not fall again."

Independent analysts say that Israel not only has some 200 nuclear weapons, but also a second strike capability (from submarine based launchers). That means that even if (God forbid) Tehran was able to deliver a blow that took out most of Israel's population, Israel would be able to respond in a way that destroys Iran as a society. In other words, threatening Israel with annihilation is itself irrational unless the goal (wholly irrational) is to prompt Israel into attacking first.
 
But that gets to the key question. Is the Iranian regime so irrational that it would go beyond threats and actually risk everything with a nuclear attack?
 
Probably not. But there is no way to know for sure. This is not to say that there is something unique to fanatical Iranians. There are plenty of people in Israel (especially in the haredi neighborhoods of Jerusalem, in Hebron, and in the settlements) who would push the button to eradicate the Arabs if they could. They would happily go down in a blaze of holy glory just to take the Palestinians with them. But these fanatics are not (yet) running Israel.
 
But there are fanatics running Iran. Not everyone in charge is a fanatic-in fact, there is apparently a struggle going on right now between various factions-but there clearly are fanatics within the regime. It wasn't the moderates who stole the election and sent the basij out into the streets to smash heads.
 
That is why Israelis believe they are facing a serious problem. But, as was the case with the first Iraq war, Israel's direct involvement does not contribute to the solution.
 
Israel, because of its history, is the last country that can solve this problem. Many, and not just in the Muslim world, view Israel's stance toward Iran as heavily influenced by its fear that a nuclear Iran by definition would make it impossible for Israel to do whatever it feels like doing in the region.

That may not be true, but the perception is real. For 41 years Israel has behaved as if it could do anything it likes in the name of security. Today it uses security as an excuse to expand settlements and to allow settlers to treat Palestinians like dirt. No wonder its legitimate fears about Iran are viewed as "crying wolf." No wonder there is so much skepticism about its policies toward Iran.

The most helpful thing Israel can do is to allow the United States (and the other major powers) to deal with this problem. Neither Israel-nor its tacit allies in the struggle to block a nuclear Iran, starting with the Saudis-can deter an Iran hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. But the United States and our allies-working with the so far recalcitrant Russians and Chinese-can. It is President Barack Obama's job to lead. It is Israel's job to trust him.