AND JUST A BIT MORE... on Iranian nuclear diplomacy. Alex at Fistful of Euros has a good discussion of what an Iranian nuclear weapon might mean for proliferation in the Middle East. Nuclear weapons are well within the capability of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and might conceivably be pursued in response to the Iranian program. This would be a bad thing, of course, but it highlights another problem with the scaremongering over Iran's program. If Iranian nukes present an existential threat to Israel (and Oren and Halevi assert that they have been seen as such since well prior to Ahmadinejad's ascension to the presidency), and if Iraqi nukes would have been an existential threat to Israel (as we were repeatedly told since 1981), then Saudi and Egyptian nukes also represent such a threat. I can only assume that Oren and Halevi would conclude that an Israel which fails to strike any incipient Egyptian program would "forfeit it's right to speak in the name of Jewish history." We can believe that, or we can accept the much more sensible proposition that the Founders of Israel understood the dangers inherent in the nuclear age, never believed that Israel could achieve existential security, yet concluded that the benefits of establishing Israel outweighed the risks. Such a formulation doesn't necessarily mean allowing Iran's nuclear program to go forward, but it does bring some much needed sobriety to the conversation.
--Robert Farley
