Military Attack on Iran Will Set Reform Back 50 Years
Tikun Olam - Make The World A Better Place / Richard Silverstein
20-Dec-2009 (one comment)

Lustick argues that the reason Israel is so vehement about stopping an Iranian weapon is NOT because it fears being attacked, but rather it fears losing nuclear hegemony and the constrictions on its own behavior which would result.  Israel has always followed the dictum of Jacobtinsky’s Iron Wall, which argued that Israel need to use massive, overpowering force to defeat the Arabs so they would eventually see reason and accept Israel on its own terms.  This explains the “madman” strategy of the Lebanon and Gaza wars.  If Iran gets the bomb, then Israel can no longer muster that overwhelming firepower to intimidate the Arab enemy.  This will mean that it is that much more likely Israel will have to accomodate to its opponents than the other way around.  This constraint upon its courses of action is unacceptable and “sends shivers down the spines of Israeli leaders.”
. . . . 

The current crisis also enables one to broach the idea that all nuclear states should be on the same terms, and the same demands should be made of all of them.  They all should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel is not a member).  They all should offer inspections by the IAEA.  They should all follow the same standards and sign the same agreements.  There needs to be transparency in nuclear affairs and not the current state of opacity represented by Israel’s approach.

Dan Huck

Some Equality -The Unacceptable Existenial Threat

by Dan Huck on

Ian Lustick, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist specializing in Israeli politics,  Keith Weissman, former AIPAC deputy director, and Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, an expert on Iran’s nuclear program discuss the nuclear program and it's ramifications.