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?

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.

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

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.

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