Israel's calculus on Iran
David Bratslavsky
Iran has threatened that Israel "must be wiped off the map." A well defended Israel could dismiss this statement as typical rant. Except Iran is in advanced stages of a nuclear (weapons) program and time is running out. The last resort may be a pre-emptive military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, which no other country seems willing to take. Will Israel take matters into its own hands?
First, why the military option is a bad idea:
1) However unlikely, international diplomacy and new economic sanctions could be effective in stopping Iran's nuclear program.
2) Israel's strongest ally and military backer, America, does not support military action.
3) A military strike on multiple targets over 1000 miles away provides no guarantees of success and could provoke massive retaliation.
4) Bold and destabilizing action has a heavy diplomatic price and negative unforeseen consequences. Israel's own nuclear program would be questioned.
So why is Israel contemplating a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?
1) Israel would eliminate or greatly delay a growing existential threat. Iran's Ayatollah-backed president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared, "
Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm." Nuclear weapons could create precisely such a storm. The US-Soviet Cold War playbook gives hope that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will balance and neutralize the Iranian threat. But a Jewish state born after the Holocaust will take threats of another one seriously. In a region where fundamentalism, instability, and the concept of martyrdom are prominent factors of national politics, doomsday scenarios are not unthinkable.
2) Simply possessing nuclear capabilities makes Iran dangerous. The more imminent threat may not be Iran’s willingness to use a nuclear weapon. Rather, the concern is Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony with a nuclear weapon as its ultimate defense against containment. With Iranian backed Hezbollah to Israel’s north and Hammas in the Gaza Strip, an unchecked Iran will act through its proxies to cause considerable damage to Israel's security. Israel does not fear military defeat -- the IDF can handle conventional war -- but a prolonged war of attrition that causes continuous damage to investment prospects, tourism, economy, and the national psyche is untenable. It would drastically decrease quality of life and create incentive for emigration by those with desirable skills and talent. Israel cannot be forced into such a predicament if it wishes long-term sustainability.
3) Iranian nuclear capabilities damage prospects for peace with Israel's neighbors. Growing Iranian power would have detrimental effects on Israel's ability to both deter and negotiate with the Palestinians. Since the 2005 pullout from Gaza resulted in Iranian backed Hammas rule and rocket attacks, Israel cannot take similar steps in the West Bank while Iranian power continues to grow. Meanwhile, slow progress on the Palestinian issue puts Israel in a clash with much of the international community and seemingly the current American administration, which consider Palestinian statehood a top policy agenda. Eliminating a source of Iranian strength would weaken support for radical Palestinian elements, and make concessions for peace more plausible.
4) Iranian nukes turn Israel into a sacrificial lamb. Growing Iranian power, borders with Afghanistan and Iraq, and vast energy reserves have made rapprochement an important goal of European and American foreign policy. Relations with and support for Israel would be the likely tradeoff when seeking middle ground with Iran. Successfully eliminating Iranian nuclear capabilities would lower its potential for threat and, despite an initial boost in domestic popularity, ultimately undermine the credibility of its clerical regime. As a result, the West could deal with Iran on more favorable terms.
5) What good is Israel if it is not top dog? A tectonic shift in the regional balance of power toward Iran would
undermine Israel’s value to the US. American interest in Israel was sparked not in 1948, with Israel's creation, but in 1967, after Israel's decisive victory against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. As Iranian nuclear capabilities diminish Israel's military superiority, an underlying factor of U.S.-Israeli alliance would also wane. Destroying Iran's nuclear program would maintain Israel's military edge and its capability to be an effective strategic ally.
6) Iranian nukes will destabilize the region more than an Israeli attack. With Iran's nuclear capabilities expanding its sphere of influence, surrounding regional powers will either accommodate the stronger Iran or partake in a regional (perhaps nuclear) arms race, another grim prospect that Israel is keen to avoid. The world, as seen through Israeli eyes, would be a much better place should Iranian nuclear ambitions be forestalled.
Any long-term security gains would be paid dearly in the immediate term, with unknown long-term consequences. Still, this would not be the first time Israel fought and paid heavily for what it considered necessary for its survival.
The writer graduated The George Washington University with a degree in international affairs and currently works as a venture capital analyst. 
