Does a nuclear Iran pose an existential threat to Israel?

Israel has undergone tremendous progress both economically and militarily since its formation on May 14th 1948. For a young nation with a population of a mere 7.28 million, the military and financial might of Israel in the Middle East is unprecedented. However, progress has not been easy for this Jewish state; Israel has been in constant tensions with the neighboring Middle Eastern countries. Iran is one such country. And with Iran trying to establish their own nuclear program, it is very important to dwell upon this question - Does the acquisition of nuclear weapons or establishment of a fully functional nuclear facility pose an existential threat to Israel? And in light of this issue, how should USA and its allies respond to Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons?
First of all, it might seem interesting to ponder why does Iran want nuclear weapons? Although Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in his speech at Columbia University that acquisition of nuclear weapons was not the goal of Iran’s nuclear program (transcript, September 2007), repeated failures by the Ahmadinejad government to properly comply by UN’s nuclear inspections suggest otherwise. This trend is nothing new as Israel played the same cat and mouse game with the UN during the dawn of its nuclear program in the 60’s. Presently, Israel is one of the nine fully fledged nuclear powers. According to The Journal of Turkish Weekly, the International Institute of Strategic Studies estimates the number of warheads as being "up to 200"( AFP via IslamOnline.net & News Agencies, May 2006). Regarding Iran’s need for nuclear weapons, Simon Jenkins puts forth a clear picture –
“Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has "no right" to nuclear defense?" (Jenkins, January 2006)
Plus, in recent times, the west’s critic on Iran and US involvement in Iraq further strengthens Iran’s case for nuclear weapons. But, the question is, how is acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran a threat to Israel (a nuclear power itself)?
For being an existential threat to Israel, Iran must be prepared and ready to use its acquired nuclear weapons on the small Jewish state. Claims by Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the “myth” of the holocaust and denial of Israel as a sovereign nation might be taken as the basis for the allegations claiming Iran’s desires to wipe Israel out from the face of the Earth. However, according to rational choice theory, the costs seem to heavily outweigh the benefits. If Iran launches even one nuclear warhead towards Israel, Israel will launch many more back, plus Israel’s sworn allies (especially the US) will obliterate Iran. Thus using the nuclear weapons against Israel does not seem to be a sensible option for Iran. One might argue that Iran might use the nuclear weapons as a way to gain leverage in the Middle East. This argument seems to be much more viable as this has been the case with Israel. Israel has been known to use its military force to dominate Middle East foreign policy. However, we can conclude that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel but does challenge Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Now, moving on to the next question: How should USA and its allies respond to Iran’s quest to acquire nuclear weapons? Post World War II, US has been an avid supporter of Israel and Israel has been the chief US ally in the Middle East. The economical and military support provided by US to Israel is far more compared to any other country. Recently, President Bush signed into law a Continuing Resolution providing Israel with $2.38 billion in security assistance. In combination with the additional $170 million in aid to Israel approved earlier this year, the Jewish state will receive $2.55 billion in security assistance for fiscal year 2009 (AIPAC, October, 2008). This lump sum shows US commitment towards Israel and its well being. Where does this US commitment come from? Many attribute this to the strong Israeli American lobby the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many believe that it was due to AIPAC’s push that US entered Iraq. The AIPAC definitely looks out for the benefit of Israel, but the Iraq strategy backfired and a new political adversary (Iran) raised its head amongst the turmoil. AIPAC’s position on Iran’s nuclear program is very negative. It supports heavy sanctions against Iran until they quit the nuclear program and also tried to pass a resolution proposing heavy sanctions on Iran (Glunts, October 2008). This resolution failed to pass as the resolution’s critics charged that some language in the resolution could be used to justify a blockade against Iran, an act of war under international law. In brief, AIPAC supports every action (even military) to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear warheads. This has shaped current US foreign policy which says no to negotiations with Iran without pre set conditions. Another American Jewish group, known as the J Street Project, has a completely different outlook on this issue. They seem to agree that acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran may pose a threat to Israeli dominance in the Middle East, but they believe that any military action will only worsen the issue as it has been with Iraq. They claim that any military action would only empower Iranian hardliners who believe the only way to safeguard their country would be to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear capability. According to their website, the best way to deal with the issue is to “try real engagement. If that doesn't work, get smart about containment”. The J Street Project (JCP) promotes talks with Iran and if that doesn’t work, they promote a policy of smarter and more effective containment coupled with strong, multilateral sanctions (Jstreet.org). The policy promoted by JCP seems much more practical and involving much less costs to America and its allies than the one proposed by AIPAC. Thus, we can say that the best way to deal with the issue of the acquisition of nuclear status by Iran is to arrange diplomatic negotiations and smart containment if need arises.
Thus we can see that the acquirement of nuclear weapons by Iran pose no existential threat to Israel. Iran does not seem to be violating any international laws by becoming a nuclear state. However, Iran might use the weapons as leverage over other Middle Eastern countries. According to Rational choice theory, the best way to deal with the issue is to try negotiation first and then if need arises, go with smart containment and sanction policies.


Bibliography
.
Agencies, AFP via IslamOnline.net & News. Israel Has Nearly 300 Atomic Warheads: Report. 10 5 2006. .
Borger, Julian and Ewen MacAskill. As protesters jeer, Ahmadinejad denies Iran wants nuclear weapons. 25 9 2007. .
Full transcript of Ahmadinejad Speech at Columbia University. 25 9 2007. .
Glunts, Ira. A Vote For Military Force Against Iran? AIPAC's House Resolution, H. Con. Res. 362. 01 08 2008. .
Jenkins, Simon. The west has picked a fight with Iran that it cannot win. 18 01 2006. .
Military action against Iran won’t work . .
What should we do about Iran? .