Are there no bounds to hypocrisy? The Times is reporting that Israel is seriously considering using nuclear weapons against Iran so that Iran does not threaten the world with nuclear weapons. That would break all irony records.
If Iran is at best two years away from developing a nuclear weapon and they say they have no intention of even building one, let alone using it against anybody and Israel says they are planning to use one against Iran, shouldn't we be considering preemptive military action against Israel instead?
We claim that we care about non-proliferation. We claim that we care about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Then shouldn't our top priority be to stop Israel?
Or could it be that we are wildly hypocritical and don't give a damn about weapons of mass destruction as long as it is our friends who use them? Remember we didn't mind at all when Saddam Hussein used WMD against Iran, because at the time he was on our side.
If we condone Israel using a nuclear weapon against a Muslim country, then we will not have a "war on terror" anymore, we will have the war against Islam that some of the conservative nut-jobs in this country have been hoping and pushing for. Do you know that there are one billion Muslims in the world? One billion.
This plan is okay we're told because these will only be "tactical" nuclear weapons. Are there ones with no tactics? I am sure that the 70 million people in Iran and the rest of the Muslim world will understand this distinction. No, don't worry, the nuclear fallout that killed your children was from a tactical nuclear weapon.
I don't know why Israel is threatening to do this, whether it's to get us to start a war with Iran instead (how does it make it better for us if we fight Israel's irrational war for it) or to scare Iran into cooperating or because they're actually going to do it. But it's madness all the same.
Even threatening to use nuclear weapons against another sovereign country is a complete abdication of the moral high ground. Then you have absolutely no right to complain about the idea that Iran might use them at a later time. You are, in essence, saying it is perfectly acceptable to use them.
If Israel actually goes through with this, they will be an international pariah and they should no longer be considered an ally. There is no legitimate excuse to do a nuclear first strike.
This isn't even about Israel's concern that Iran would ever use their non-existent nuclear weapons. They know that even Iran isn't crazy enough to risk the lives of every one of their citizens by dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel - and that would clearly be the retaliation they would face.
Instead, this is about Iran gaining bargaining leverage in the Middle East. If Israel is willing to nuke a country to make sure they don't have slightly better leverage in the region, then their government is far more hideous than I think (I assume and hope that the government considering this barbaric idea doesn't truly represent the will of the Israeli people).
Finally, if Israel launches a nuclear first strike, it will absolutely guarantee a nuclear build-up in the Middle East, and the rest of the world. If there are countries in the world that are willing to use nuclear weapons on countries that did not attack them, then all other nations must be prepared and must have deterrence of their own. It would be irrational and irresponsible of any government not to build up their own nuclear arsenal to prevent countries like Israel from attacking them.
It must be noted in the end that this has not happened yet. It is grossly irresponsible and counterproductive to even suggest the possibility, as apparently some in the Israeli government have. But Israel has not launched their nukes yet. I hope that they are bluffing. But if they are not and they go through with this plan, it would be unconscionable to support them. If they use nuclear weapons against a country that did not attack them, we must end our relationship with them and let the world know they are no longer our ally.