DR. nuke WHO

Israel is the only country in the world whose very existence has been threatened since its establishment, and recently Iran was added to those who threaten its destruction. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has marched down three paths: obsessive hostility to the Zionist state; control over terrorist emissaries, who are fueled by the radical Iranian ideology; and a passion for acquiring nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.

In recent days, Ahmadinezhad has been getting inspiration from North Korea's crossing of the nuclear threshold. He is observing, studying and making decisions. It is important to recall that, unlike Iran, North Korea does not arm terrorist organizations seeking to attack the United States or other countries, although it has supplied, and continues to supply, missile technologies to Iran, Syria and additional countries.

How can this threat be halted? In light of the limitations of the United States' power, the question is this: If two nonconventional threats occur simultaneously that would challenge the world order, one in the Far East and the other in the Middle East, where would the United States direct its strategic efforts? It may be assumed that the United States would prefer the more urgent and important one, from the standpoint of its national interests. The United States would act according to the well-known axiom, "If there is a heart attack, the headache is forgotten." Countries in the Far East, such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore and others constitute a vital, strategic interest for US national security. Harm to them would be in the category of a "heart attack" for the United States.

Therefore, the United States must first neutralize the Iranian nuclear potential, which for Israel is on the order of a "heart attack," before it becomes operational.

The Iranian issue is first and foremost a matter that needs to be dealt with by the international community. In light of the failure of the diplomatic moves, the window of opportunity for halting the Iranian nuclear threat can be measured in months. For the United States to be able to act effectively vis-a-vis North Korea, President Bush, who is in his final term, must stop the Iranian threat, by military force if necessary, as a weapon of last resort that is liable to develop into a war with multiple participants.

Let us not forget -- Iran's overall strength is much greater than that of Afghanistan and Iraq, which the United States has been fighting in recent years. From a geographic standpoint, Iran's territory is 80 times larger than that of the State of Israel, four times that of Iraq, 2.5 times that of Afghanistan, and 160 times that of Lebanon.

It can be assumed that the United States would have a difficult time destroying Iran's nuclear potential, which is like finding a needle in a haystack, with the well-known, conventional weaponry. In light of this, the question that needs to be asked is this: Would the United States implement one of NATO's resolutions from the 1990s, according to which "nuclear weapons shall only be used when its non-use would entail a higher price than its use"? Any war is, by definition, "evil," but sometimes there is such a thing as a "necessary evil," in which various countries, including Israel, are liable to be harmed.

If there is indeed a US attack against Iran, there is a very high probability that the State of Israel would be attacked, among other things with missiles and rockets, by Iran. The latter would be joined by Syria, Hizballah, and the Palestinians in Gaza, Judaea and Samaria. In such a situation Israel must win. There are only two options: We either win or we explain. This time, Israel cannot afford to be on the explaining side.

Any questions?

Nuclear Weapons May Ultimately Have To Be Used To Remove Iranian Threat
Commentary by Dr Shmu'el Tzabag, head of the Ashqelon Academic College Department of Political Science: "Prepare for a Nuclear Strike"
Ma'ariv (Internet Version-WWW)
Thursday, October 26, 2006 T11:55:29Z