On Applying Western Ideas about Deterrence to Radical Islamists -- "Massive Preemption" as the Only Sane Policy for Israel's Dealing with Iran

I spent the better part of my college years studying East-West strategic behavior, and as part of that training, the theory of "Mutually Assured Destruction" ("MAD") was ingrained deeply into my psyche. these presupposes rational instincts on both parties, and the assumption that, as a certainty, they will be destroyed by the surviving forces of their enemy if they attack first. There are an increasing number of Western and US diplomats who believe that we should treat the Iranians, who call daily for the obliteration of Israel -- and act towards those ends through their various proxies, as well as directly -- as rational players who can be deterred by MAD. Even if the Iranians believe that the West wouldn't lift a finger to defend Israel, they must surely be deterrable by Israel's 100-200 nuclear weapons, and other considerable strategic assets, no? Maybe not, based on their behavior so far. And Israel lacks the strategic and territorial depth of the US and the USSR to allow a first strike to take place (a possibility which MAD presupposes) -- one nuclear hit against Israel in the central plain, killing 250-500,000 souls and irradiating another 1-2 million, putting off-limits the irradiated core of the country, and Israel would most possibly cease to exist as a nation. See the attached article, which is an excellent exposition of the problem. Mideast: On Target - Pre-empting Iran

That being the case, even if the Western world viewed Iran as more of an Israeli problem that a Western civilization problem (and I would beg to differ, based on the pronouncements of the Iranian regime, and the threat of anti-Western proliferation through unsavory Islamist proxies), it is the moral imperative of Israel's leadership to enact a strategy that leaves no doubt in the minds of the Iranians as to where the red line is. To quote Elliot in the attached article, asuming the rationality of Iran's Islamist radical regime (a big assumption, in my view):

"It is unclear whether Israel’s retaliatory capability, conventional or otherwise, is perceived to be capable of inflicting sufficient destruction on Iran to deter that country’s leadership from pursuing what it has publicly declared as a central policy goal: wiping Israel off the map.

Consequently, Israel cannot afford to rely on the threat of retaliation, massive as it might be, to deter an Iranian nuclear attack. The possibility that Iran’s leaders will calculate that Iran can survive an Israeli retaliatory strike, either as a result of damage inflicted by an Iranian surprise attack on Israel’s retaliatory forces or because Iran is simply too large to destroy with Israel’s existing arsenal, jeopardizes the survival of Israel.

Israel’s only prudent alternative is a declared policy of massive pre-emption in response to the slightest hint of aggressive Iranian nuclear activity... The danger of escalation to nuclear war would thus be a short step, or misstep, away, making the world a much more dangerous place than it is today."

This is yet another reason why it is in the developed world's interest to deal with the Iranians NOW, and not kick the can down the road, as it appars to be doing.