A Nuclear Iran: The Case for Action

Iranian Rhetoric Against Israel

Though there is evidence Iran will not be concerned with the possibility of its own destruction, there is also evidence that Iran will be less prone to adhere to the nuclear taboo, the moral disapproval toward nuclear weapons that prevents usage in conjunction with MAD. Iran’s leadership is well-versed in making overly vitriolic statements regarding Israel. This is particularly disconcerting in light of the fact that Israel would presumably be the target for any Iranian nuclear weapons. The kind of rhetorical language toward Israel that emerges from the Islamic Republic of Iran suggests that there is something more than just mere geopolitical competition involved. It appears that there is a form of intrinsic hatred for the Jewish state, and the various comments heard in recent years are not the type that should be uttered by statesmen with international influence. In view of this malicious language and action directed toward Israel, there is reason to believe that Iran’s leadership may not view the use of nuclear weapons against Israel as immoral. In fact, actually using nuclear weapons against Israel may be the moral imperative in the minds of people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In one particularly troubling series of statements, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the president of Iran from 1989 to 1997 and a senior ayatollah, let loose some rather unfortunate commentary regarding Israel. Rafsanjani informed worshippers at a Friday prayer service in 2001: “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”²³ In blatantly suggesting the use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Rafsanjani crossed a red line in international relations, in effect threatening the destruction of the Jewish state. The cleric also seems to be articulating the notion that any retaliation would be an acceptable cost in securing the destruction of Israel and ignores the prospect of resultant casualties within the Muslim world. This disturbing comment offers clear demonstration that Iran may be insusceptible to mutually assured destruction. Such remarks are highly disconcerting considering the source. In a Forbes magazine article, Rafsanjani was described as having “more or less run the Islamic Republic for the past 24 years.”²⁴ Quite simply, Rafsanjani’s commentary was completely irresponsible for such a prominent figure. It is also within reason to find that the current quest for an Iranian nuclear capability is meant to fulfill Rafsanjani’s wish.

In the years since his election, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has uttered a number of particularly disquieting comments directed at Israel. As is the case with Rafsanjani, language of this sort is simply unacceptable for a person in such a position. Speaking at a conference entitled “The World Without Zionism,” in October 2005, Ahmadinejad made reference to the founding father of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, by stating: “As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”²⁵ For once, Israel was supported internationally, and Ahmadinejad’s comments were roundly condemned. No nation should be allowed to make such comments regarding another nation. Ominously, if Iran is able to develop nuclear weapons, such threats would have an easy means of coming to fruition and with the undeterrable nature of the leadership, there may be an attempt to see this wish come true. Notably, the International Herald Tribune makes reference to the new paradigm Ahmadinejad’s leadership has brought: “Senior [Iranian] officials had avoided provocative language over the past decade, but Ahmadinejad appears to be taking a more confrontational tone than Iranian leaders have in recent years.”²⁶ American and Israeli policymakers should be particularly cognizant of this shift in language as Ahmadinejad’s belief in the imminence of the return of the Mahdi makes for an unpredictable and intractable foe.

Unfortunately, this has not been the only belligerent comment made by Ahmadinejad toward Israel. More recently, he had this to say in reference to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006: “The arrogant superpowers and the Zionist regime invested all their efforts during the 33-day war, but after 60 years, their pride has been trampled and the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started by Hizbullah fighters.”²⁷ He also added: “with the help of all the Lebanese and Palestinian fighters, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future.”²⁸ As displayed, the president of Iran has an obvious history of making overtly malicious comments towards Israel. Though one might dismiss this as mere oratory, the concrete moves Iran has taken against Israel through support of Hizbullah and Hamas shows that its elimination is an actual foreign policy objective of the Iranian regime. Armed with nuclear weapons and imbued with a messianic mindset that prophesies chaos and destruction, such a state would be highly unpredictable and would represent a grave threat to the security interests of Israel and of the United States as well.