While I have often focused in my writing on the more immediate threats posed to Israel by Hezbollah and Hamas, there is no question that Iran remains a potentially deadly enemy as well. In a  new piece in the Atlantic Monthly, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg considers how the prospect of a nuclear Iran could change the balance of power in the Middle East and the ways in which government officials in both Tel Aviv and Washington are thinking about how to counter this rising, and potentially quite potent, threat to regional stability.

One of the ideas which comes up consistently in Mr. Goldberg’s well-written piece is the feeling among Israeli political and military leaders that if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons Israel would face an existential threat from Tehran. The idea that Iran would use nuclear weapons as  a cover for military adventures in the region (using conventional forces and proxies) is worrisome enough, but based on what Goldberg reports about discussion in Israel, it seems that concerns within the Jewish state extend beyond increased Iranian support for Hezbollah, and that the notion that Iran might use nuclear weapons directly against Israel is very much on their minds. Undoubtedly, this is a threat which must be countered – but the question remains, not only how to do so, but what unintended consequences might occur as a result ?

For America, with a large number of US forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States faces the prospect of direct retaliation against American military personnel.. The US could also face an increase in terrorist attacks. These are not insignificant threats, and ones that no doubt are under discussion at the Pentagon, White House and within the American intelligence community. For Israel, though, Goldberg seems to suggest that the stakes are higher, or they are at least perceived to be, by those who currently fill key decision-making posts in Israel.  One can never really predict the outcome of any particular military, political or diplomatic decision – educated guessed can be made, but there always remains an element of the unknown, and if Israel were to launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, we have no way of knowing what the outcome would be. I think it is this uncertainty that has thus far prevented both the IDF and the American military from taking concrete measures to deny the Iranians an expanded nuclear capability.

From what I read in Mr. Goldberg’s piece, and from what I have read elsewhere, it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between the Israeli and American view: For the United States a nuclear Iran could rapidly go from regional player to regional bully, upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East and potentially set the stage for a major regional war in the next ten to twenty years, while for Israel there is a very real sense that if significant action is not taken that President Ahmedinijad, once he gets hold of nuclear weapons, will seek to finish what Hitler started.

When and how these two allies – the United States and Israel – decide to deal decisively with the threat of a nuclear Iran remains to be seen. I personally have no desire to see another war in the Middle East, but if the Israelis truly believe that Iran poses an existential threat I would not blame them for acting, and neither, I hope, would the rest of the Western world.

-Daniel E. Levenson

Publisher and Editor-in-Chief

The New Vilna Review