Over at The Atlantic there is an article by Karim Sadadpor called “5 Minutes With Benjamin Netanyahu.” In this article Sadadpor states:
With its own arsenal of over 100 nuclear weapons — not to mention the unconditional support of the world’s greatest superpower — Israel needlessly elevates Iran by labeling it an “existential threat.”
I’ll grant that — given what seems to be public knowledge — calling Iran’s nuclear ambitions an “existential threat” may be somewat hyperbolic at this stage in the game, and I agree that the use of this term has elevated Iran’s actions. However, I believe that elevating Iran is precisely what is called for due to reasons I have previously stated.
Sadadpor goes on to say…
Given that Israel’s underlying problem with Iran has more to do with the character of the revolutionary regime than with its nuclear ambitions (after all, Israel seems unconcerned about the Pakistani bomb), then the mathematics of an Israeli strike don’t make sense.
I wish to humbly disagree with this statement. Iran’s relationship to the heavily armed Lebanon situated group Hezbollah (and visa-a-versa) makes Iran fundamentally different from Pakistan. In addition, Iran’s dubious “democracy” is a far cry from the democracy which exists in Pakistan, as evidenced by the election of the late Benazir Bhutto, which is something that would not happen in Iran today. i.e. Even if Ahmadinejad does lose an election, that does not mean he will stop being the President of Iran.
There are two points Sadapor makes that I do agree with. The first, which I totally agree with, is that Iran’s nuclear program is costing its government lots of money and has yet to produce any nuclear weapon. If this spending of money and getting nothing for it other than economic sanctions, the ill will of the rest of the world, and the threat of being bombed continues, the citizens of Iran and the “green movement” in particular can use it to motivate people to push Ahmadinejad out of power.
The second point I agree with, but I think it is important to point something out:
To put things in perspective, a $1 drop in oil prices is approximately $600 million in lost annual revenue for Iran. Military action that would send oil prices skyrocketing makes it far less costly for Iran to continue supporting Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention expand the ranks of bassij militia and Revolutionary Guards who rule by terror.
This is indeed something that should, and I believe does, weigh heavily on the minds of decision makers in Israel. My guess is that the Israelis are thinking along the lines of, “It stands to reason if Iran does get access to the protective umbrella having nuclear weapons provides, that umbrella will extend to Hezbollah, which will in turn be far more likely to start firing rockets into Isreal with greater frequency.”
So giving Iran more money to fund Hezbollah is much better than allowing Iranian access to nuclear weapons with which it would protect Hezbollah.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, Benjamin Netanyah, Bhutto Benazir, Bibi, democracy, Hezbollah, Iran, Isreal, Karim Sadadpor, nuclear, nuclear weapons, The Atlantic