Justus For All

Every time the topic of Middle East and nuclear weapons gets raised in the same paragraph there is one thought that comes to mind -

How much of a causative factor for Iran and Syria is the existing presence of nuclear weapons in Middle East?

I take it that ‘existing pressence’ is code words for Israel’s nuclear weapons.

I find it interesting that when terror supporting autocratic regimes with horrible human rights records seek to aquire nuclear technology, the only thing you can think of is how it is Israel’s fault.

No, not “fault” but consequence.

And I am not too impressed by Israel’s idea of “human rights” either but that is a totally different argument…

Well, my guess is that both regimes desire nuclear missiles not because Israel has them, but primarily as a deterence against conventional attack, particularly from the U.S. Some of course say that if only Bush wasn’t so bellicose this wouldn’t be a problem (although the quest for this sort of capability precedes Bush.) I tend to believe that they want these weapons to insulate them from the consequences of actions that they wish to take to promote their own goals (both direct military action and support of terror) that would be sure to cause a military response if they didn’t have nuclear capability.

Iran probably also desires these weapons as a deterence toward Saudi Arabia and as a means of gaining ground in their contest with that nation over leadership of the Muslim world.

It seems unlikely to me that Israel would launch an unprovoked nuclear attack at any of its neighbors (although if its neighbors have nuclear weapons of their own, this chance rises greatly.) Of course in the advent of a military attack, I certainly can imagine Israel embracing a first use policy, but I doubt that you are saying that Iran and Syria ‘deserve’ to have nukes so they can attack Israel.

As for Israel’s human rights at least beat those of it’s neighbors. I certainly don’t like everything Israel does, but calling them the root of all evil in the middle east is grossly unfair as well as inaccurate. For the most part, Israel serves as a scapegoat to distract people from their corrupt autocratic regimes whose evils far outstrip anything that Israel has ever done. Buying into this propaganda enables those regimes in the subjegation of thier own people.

“It seems unlikely to me that Israel would launch an unprovoked nuclear attack at any of its neighbors…”

That I might agree with, but then I also have some regard for the level of paranoia that existed during the 50s and 60s when the only balance against the (presumed) nuclear might of the USSR was the wests MAD policy. Using that level of paranoia (and I think that there was justification and need for it) as a guide to the “feelings” of nations such as Iran and Nth Korea today does lead to the understandable desire for counterbalance… No?