Ehud Eiran and Martin B.

Malin

The Sum of all Fears:

Israel’s Perception of a
Nuclear-Armed Iran

Thucydides’ ancient logic still governs: uncertainty (over Iran’s

nuclear intentions) and the fear this inspires (in Israel) increases the risk of
another war (in the Middle East). Even if Israel’s response to the Iranian nuclear
program does not lead the region into a war, Israel’s fears will be crucial in
shaping Middle Eastern politics and will help to determine the stability of the
region in the years ahead.
The U.S. public has been hearing about Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran for
several years. It is understandable if most Americans discount this drama as
part of the background noise of international affairsa constant feature of
international reporting in which the story remains the same, and the dire
predictions never pan out. But it is important to pay attention to Israeli concerns
about Iran for several reasons.
First, Israel not only has a particular view of the threat posed by the military
dimension of the Iranian nuclear program, it also has an independent means of
taking action to alleviate its fears. Although Israel is less capable than the
United States, if Israel were to launch strikes on Iran to set back the nuclear
program, the effects would ripple across the region and beyond. Meir Dagan,
former head of Israel’s external intelligence agency, the Mossad, warned a
number of times that an Israeli attack on Iran would ‘‘ignite a regional war.’’1
Second, Israel’s anxieties over Iran could produce a series of defensive moves
and escalating responses which spiral out of control in a manner that neither side

Ehud Eiran is an Assistant Professor at the University of Haifa and an Affiliate of the Middle
East Negotiation Initiative at the Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School. Eiran is also
a former Assistant to the Foreign Policy Advisor to Israel’s Prime Minister. Martin Malin
the Executive Director of the Project on Managing the Atom at the Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Copyright # 2013 Center for Strategic and International Studies
The Washington Quarterly • 36:3 pp. 77
89
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2013.825551

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 77

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

intends. As the history of war and conflict in the Middle Eastfrom the June
1967 Six-Day War to the November 2012 round of violence between Israel and
the Gaza-based Hamasreminds us, the Middle East is a tinderbox where a few
sparks could all too easily ignite a major conflagration.
Finally, as President Obama’s March 2013 visit to Israel demonstrated, Israel’s
fears of Iran have become an inescapable and urgent concern for U.S. policy in
the Middle East. Given the U.S. —Israeli friendship, President Obama will need
to pay close attention to these sensitivities toward Iran. A clear understanding of
Israeli perceptions of Iran will remain essential to U.S. policy toward Tehran.
Israel’s fear of an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon takes at least four distinct
forms, with a diverse set of sources: fear of annihilation, fear of a more difficult
security environment, socioeconomic fears, and fear of a challenge to Israel’s
founding ideological principles. Israelis generally frame these distinct fears as
cumulative, not separate. The four layers of threat perception explain why most
Israelis are willing to support their leaders’ harsh line towards Iran. However, as
we show below, the various fears also hold contradictions that explain internal
Israeli divisions over the required response to Iran, such as the tension between
Prime Minister Netanyahu and his security establishment. Any attempt to
unpack Israel’s framing of, and response to, the Iranian nuclear challenge should
therefore begin with an analysis of these different fears.

Existential Fear

A March 2012 poll conducted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
revealed that 66 percent of Israelis believe that ‘‘if Iran will acquire a nuclear
weapon it would use it against Israel.’’ 77 percent of Israelis believe that the
‘‘Iranian threat would pose an existential threat to them.’’2 Israelis consider
the possibility of their collective annihilation a real risk. At least in part, this is
the result of the centrality of the Holocaust in the political life of the Jewish
state, haunting nearly all public discussion of Iran in Israel. Polls ask flatly if a
second Holocaust is possible or impossible should Iran get the bomb.3 Many
Israelis ascribe annihilationist intentions to leaders of the regime in Iran.
A December 2010 poll conducted by Tel Aviv University showed that
92 percent of Israeli Jews and 70 percent of Israeli Arabs view Iran as the
most hostile state in the region.4
Polling data not only responds to the occasional inflammatory statements
from Iranian leaders about wiping Israel from the pages of history; the responses
also reflect what the public hears from its own leaders about the Iranian regime’s
revolutionary zeal, religious ideology (which for some, including former
President Ahmadinejad, includes references to the imminent return of the
Twelfth Imam, or Islamic savior), culture, and notions of rationality. The June 14

78 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

election in 2013 of former diplomat and national security advisor Hassan

Rouhani as Iran’s president did not affect Israeli statements about the Iranian
threat, at least for now. In an interview just after the election, Prime Minister
Netanyahu told Lally Weymouth of The Washington Post that, unfortunately,
Rouhani’s election as President ‘‘doesn’t have the power to change Iran’s nuclear
ambitions. These are determined not by the elected president but by the so-
called Supreme Leader, [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei.’’5
Israeli political leaders frequently frame the Iranian threat by connecting
it with the Jewish experience in Europe. Prime Minister Netanyahu famously
declared in 2006, ‘‘It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself
with atomic bombs.’’6 More recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted the
Iranian issue during his address to the nation on National Holocaust Memorial
Day in April 2013. In the speech, the Prime Minister stated that ‘‘the murderous
hatred against the Jews has not passed from the world, but it simply was replaced
by murderous hatred against the Jewish state . . . Iran openly declares its intention
to destroy the State of Israel, and is using all means to achieve this goal.’’7
For some Israeli policymakers, the Iran —Holocaust connection is even more
intimate. Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh lost his grandparents in
the Holocaust; referring to Iran in an August 2012 interview, he said, ‘‘when I see
again a connection between radical ideology and absolute military capability I tell
myself . . . this is something that once annihilated a third of the Jewish people.’’8
Even some of Israel’s more dovish leaders have held to this viewthen-Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres stated as early as 1995 that ‘‘Iran asks for the destruction of
Israel.’’9 Almost two decades later Peres, now President, wondered in his April
2012 Holocaust Remembrance Day speech how the world can allow the Iranian
leadership to ‘‘openly deny the Holocaust and threaten another Holocaust.’’10
Israeli leaders have described two pathways to an attack: either a direct strike
by Iran, or an attack by a non-state actor who would acquire the weapon from
Iran. Israeli leaders, such as former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, further stated
that the country’s narrow size and population density in its central sector might
encourage Tehran to attack Israel. Barak referred a number of times to a 2001
speech by the former Iranian president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, that claimed the
Jewish state is, as Barak put it, a ‘‘one bomb state,’’ meaning that a single bomb
could end Israel’s existence.11
The effect of the Holocaust is further amplified in the minds of many Israelis
due to a common cyclical view of history. Drawing on both national and
religious sources, many Israelis believe that ‘‘in every generation they rise against
us to destroy us’’as the Passover Hagaddah states in a well-known passage.
Benjamin Netanyahu referred a number of times to the annihilationist plans for
Jews in the biblical book of Esther, perhaps because those plans were devised in
the court of the ancient Persian Empire.12 Going even further back, Moshe

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 79

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

Feiglin, now a member of Parliament representing the governing Likud party,

wrote in February 2012 that the Iranian Amalek (a tribe described in various
places in the Bible as a foe threatening enough to the Hebrews to warrant its
extermination) and the German Amalek operated just as the biblical Amalek
operated: ‘‘They have waged against us an existential war.’’13
Fear of an Iranian bomb (or any rival armed with nuclear weapons) is further
rooted in a belief among Israeli elites and the Israeli public that the region as a
whole, with Iran in the forefront, rejects Israel’s legitimacy.

Strategic Threats

Framing the threat as existential makes it clear and simple, if dire. Current and
former security officials have aired a more nuanced set of fears, describing the
numerous ways that a nuclear-armed Iran would induce unfavorable changes in
Israel’s immediate strategic environment.
First, many analysts believe that Iran armed with nuclear weapons would
become an increasingly assertive regional power, seeking to expand its influence
in both the Gulf region and the Levant. In such a circumstance, Iran might
induce weaker neighbors to jump on the Iranian bandwagon, and confront Israel
with a more aggressive and capable regional alliance. Here too, European
analogies are rampant. Ehud Barak, Israel’s former Defense Minister, stated in an
August 2012 interview to the Israeli paper Haaretz that if Iran acquires nuclear
weapons, ‘‘no one will be able to stop it when it provokes neighbors and rivals.
What happened in the Rhineland in 1936 will be child’s play compared to what
happens with Iran.’’14
Second, Iran might embolden its allies, like Syria (assuming a government
friendly toward Iran survives the civil war) and non-state actors like Hezbollah,
to pursue their aims with greater militancyincluding the use of rocket attacks
and terrorism against Israelbeneath the comfort of an Iranian nuclear
umbrella. In an August 2012 interview, then-Defense Minister Barak said ‘‘if
we will need to take action against Hezbollah and a nuclear Iran would declare
that an attack on Hezbollah constitutes an attack on Iran, what we shall
do then?’’ Barak further stated that non-state actors ‘‘cannot be deterred in the
way that countries can exert deterrence against one another. The implications of
such a development would be extremely grave.’’15 This is not only an elite
perspective. A March 2012 poll suggested that 75 percent of Israelis believe that
if Iran develops nuclear weapons, ‘‘the Palestinians and Hezbollah will grow
more belligerent toward Israel.’’16
Third, some Israelis predict that a nuclear-armed Iran would induce nuclear
and other WMD proliferation to additional states. Indeed, Barak stated that a
nuclear Iran will bring an end to the global nonproliferation regime: ‘‘until now

80 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

the world found a way to deal with two rogue states: North Korea and Pakistan.
If Iran goes nuclear . . . there will be no control over the nuclear demon.’’17
Reflecting a widely shared assessment within the Israeli security establishment,
in September 2012 former Director of Military Intelligence, Gen. (Ret.) Amos
Yadlin told Haaretz that if Iran went nuclear, ‘‘proliferation is a near certainty: If
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and other states go nuclear, a multipolar nuclear
system will come into being in the Middle Eastand by definition this will be
unstable and very dangerous.’’18
Finally, although less frequently stated in public, some Israelis are concerned
that a nuclear-armed Iran could undermine Israel’s own deterrent options, and
could force Israel to reconsider its policy of nuclear opacity. Gen. (Ret.) Ami
Ayalon, the former commander of the Israeli Navy and former head of Israel’s
domestic security agency, Shabak, commented recently that the Israeli
statements about the need for military action ‘‘puts the ambiguity of Israel’s
nuclear status at risk.’’19 Israeli leaders and analysts also fear a nuclear-armed
Iran would weaken the U.S. posture in the Middle East, further diminishing the
influence of Israel’s closest and most powerful ally.20

The Socioeconomic Challenge

Israelis also perceive an adverse socioeconomic effect of an Iran armed with a

nuclear weapon. Yarom Ariav, a former Director General of the Israeli Finance
Ministry, told Haaretz in August 2012 that ‘‘a nuclear Iran involves considerable
economic cost to Israel, from its effect on our economic rating to large security
outlays.’’21
Israelis are concerned that Iran armed with nuclear weapons would hinder the
state’s ability to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). Columnist Lawrence
Solomon articulated the concern:
You’re the CEO of IBM or Intel or Siemens or Nestlé or any one of the 500 other
Western companies that have opened up operations in Israel, home to the
developed world’s fastest-growing economy. What do you do should Iran get the
bomb? Do you continue to invest in Israel, on the hope that Iran doesn’t make good
on its promise to wipe it off the map? . . . [W]ould your top executives agree to stay in
or relocate to Israel, knowing that they would be putting their families at risk of
perishing in the same mushroom cloud that could snuff out the tiny country?22
If this fear materialized, it would be a major problem for Israel: in 2010,
49 percent of its industrial exports (excluding diamonds) were from the globally
oriented high-tech sector.23 In turn, this sector is heavily dependent on external
funding from R&D centers set in Israel by global giants like Microsoft and
Google, purchases of Israeli firms by foreign firms, and venture capital funding
from abroad. Indeed, Israeli economist Yair Aharoni reported that in 2005 over

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 81

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

50 percent of the output in R&D and communications equipment was produced

in Israel by foreign direct investment-based enterprises.24 The concern goes
well beyond high-tech. Indeed, Aharoni showed that fifteen out of Israel’s top
100 industrial and service companies are FDI-based enterprises that include
not only technology companies but also food, metal, and paper producers.
Correspondingly, employment in some sectors is heavily dependent on foreign
direct investment. Almost half of the employees of the electronic
communication sector and about a third of the basic metal sector worked in
2005 for FDI-based enterprises.25
An additional socioeconomic fear is that a nuclear Iran would diminish
Israel’s ability to retain and attract the globally-oriented, highly qualified
portions of its labor force, which are the main engines of Israel’s economy. As
Sneh put it in a 2012 interview to Haaretz, ‘‘The good mother from northern
Tel-Aviv will tell her son that he does not have to come back from MIT, she will
come to visit the grandkids in Boston.’’26

A Challenge to Founding Principles

Finally, and perhaps least obvious but not least significant, a small number of
Israeli analysts and officials have suggested that the potential of a nuclear attack
on Israel undermines secular Zionism’s credo of providing a safe haven for Jews.
Moshe Halbertal, a professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University, told The
New Yorker’s David Remnick in September 2012, ‘‘If Netanyahu fails [to prevent
Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons], in his terms the entire raison d’être of
Israel falls apartmeaning, if we cannot face up to the new Hitler, who am I?
Who are we?’’27
In his 2012 interview, Sneh said that an Iranian bomb could lead to the
withering of Israel even if the bomb would not be used. In Sneh’s opinion, even
the possibility that Iran would use a nuclear weapon would halt Jewish
immigration into Israel, deter foreign investment, and lead Israeli
technological elite to leave the country. It would ‘‘be the beginning of the
end of the Zionist dream.’’28 This sentiment was echoed, albeit in disagreement,
in a May 2012 interview with retired General Yishai Beer, who said that
comparing Israel’s current situation to the situation of Jews in 1939 is wrong
because ‘‘it signals panic and as if the state of Israel failed in its historic role of
providing physical security to Jews.’’29

Inconsistencies and Tensions

Israeli fears have implications for policy. Precisely for this reason, Israeli
perceptions deserve scrutiny. Several of the anxieties expressed above are riddled

82 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

with inconsistencies and internal tensions. First,

one would expect that Israel’s alarm would
increase as Iranian capabilities increased, but
S urprisingly, Israel’s
this is not the case. Some Israeli politicians alarm does not
notably Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon necessarily increase
Peresexpressed existential fears of Iran
in the early and mid-1990s, well before
with Iranian
Israeli intelligence estimates predicted Iranian capabilities.
capability was nearing new thresholds of
danger. In the late 1990s, under Netanyahu’s
leadership, Israel reviewed its strategy toward Iran and concluded less antagonism
would serve Israel’s interests;30 Netanyahu’s statements in this period were
far more mutedstatements about the existential threat from Iran nearly
disappearedeven in the face of criticism on Iran policy from opposition
leaders. Though today, Iran truly is on the threshold of having the capability
to produce a bomb, Shimon Peres has called publicly for less hyperbole about
the Iranian nuclear threat.31
Second, projecting the image of a victimized people facing the danger of
annihilation does not square easily with Israel’s warning that it is strong enough
to carry out an effective attack without external operational assistance. Indeed,
this contradiction has been underlined by critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s
frequent statements in recent years that Israel faces an existential threat. As
former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevi said in a September 2012 interview, ‘‘I am
absolutely appalled when I hear our leaders talking as though there were no
Israel Defense Forces . . . and as though Auschwitz is liable to be repeated. As I
see it, the message we should be conveying to the Iraniansand to ourselvesis
that we will be here in any event and in any scenario for the next two thousand
years.’’32
Third, the fear that a nuclear Iran will command greater regional influence,
causing Arab states to flock to its side, does not conform to widespread
historical evidence that states tend to band together to oppose rising threats.33
The theory that a nuclear-armed Iran would exert hegemonic influence in the
region is also at odds with the common prediction that a nuclear Iran would
provoke its neighbors to seek their own nuclear capabilities to counter Iranian
influence.
Fourth, fears that a nuclear Iran will spur proliferation in the Arab world is
contradicted by Israel’s own experience with its neighbors, in which Israeli
nuclear capability, which coincided with several armed conflicts for decades, did
not spark others to seek a matching capability. (Neither Iraq nor Libya nor Iran
was responding primarily to Israel’s capability; Syria in the 2000s may be an
exception.)

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 83

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

Finally, fears that a nuclear Iran would

U .S. officials,
undermine Israel’s economy and Zionist purpose
are flatly contradicted by the evidence. Iranian
particularly in nuclear capability has grown for a decade, during
Congress, should which time Israel’s economic growth has soared
and emigration has dropped to a thirty-year low.34
stop echoing the The inconsistencies and contradictions in
worst Israeli Israeli statements about Iran should not be
hyperbole. surprising. Beliefs reflect both our appraisals of
reality and our desires to control it. ‘‘Seeing is
believing’’ as the old adage goes, but we also
‘‘believe what we want to believe.’’ Since reality is complex and our theories for
how best to manage what the world throws at us are imperfect, we often express
inconsistent or contradictory beliefs. Political leaders are no different. And since
rhetoric is a currency of power in domestic politics, alarm over Iran is
undoubtedly expressed at times for partisan purposes. Nevertheless,
policymaker perceptions of the threat from Iran carry enormous implications
for the choices those individuals will make.

Consequences and Complications

The multiple layers of danger that Israelis see in an Iran armed with a nuclear
weapon should be seen as cumulative, and not mutually exclusive. It is the ‘‘sum
of all fears’’ rather than a single ‘‘clear and present danger.’’ One important
consequence is that, with a constant drumbeat of the danger posed by Iran,
Israeli leaders have begun to persuade their constituents. In a March 2012 Israeli
poll, 65 percent of Israelis said they believe that it will be more costly to live
with a nuclear Iran than to attack Iran before it gets nuclear weapons.35 Even if
this statistic suggests greater support than actually exists, public opinion would
not constrain the Israeli government should it choose to launch an attack on
Iran.
However, the tensions between the different conceptions of the threat have
also led to deep divisions over policy. The most significant gulf for now is
between the Holocaust-based existential framing of the threat advanced by
Prime Minister Netanyahu and the set of strategic threats outlined earlier that
the security establishment highlights. This gulf, which leads to different policy
prescriptions (attack before it is too late vs. wait and see how other delaying
measures will play out), explains the recent and unprecedented tension between
Israel’s elected officials that favor an attack, and its military leadership that
shuns one. The caution exercised by the military leadership may reflect its
realist, capabilities-based assessment, as compared to the more historical,

84 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

ideological, and identity-based framework

used by the Prime Minister. Contradictory
conceptions of Iran also reverberate outward:
D ifferent
a shared sense of strategic threat strengthens conceptions of the
the alliance with the United States, but an threat have also led to
existential imperative to attack against U.S.
preferences puts the alliance at risk.
deep divisions over
The discourse of fear carries with it several policy.
additional risks and complications. One is self-
entrapmentallowing alarmist statements to
‘‘lock in’’ certain courses of action and close off alternatives. The widespread
reliance on the Holocaust as a key to understanding the Iranian situation lends
support for an attack even without Washington, as Israel also interprets the 1940s
genocide as evidence for the need for self-reliance. Adding to the risk of
entrapment is Israel’s nuclear ambiguity. Whereas another state might define red
lines and issue deterrent threats, Israel cannot easily articulate its deterrent
options in response to an Iranian strategic threat, leaving capitulation to Iranian
nuclear capability and preventive force as poles of action with little in between.
Dire threat statements also make it more difficult from a domestic political
standpoint to have a healthy airing of options such as to contain a latent Iranian
nuclear capability or even to negotiate a compromise with Tehran. The last few
years saw close cooperation between the Israeli and U.S. security establishments
to delay Iran’s nuclear progress, assuming David Sanger’s reports about joint
Israeli—U.S. cyberattacks on Iran are correct.36 If Israelis believe they are facing
annihilation, will such joint efforts continue? Similarly, the Iranian threat creates
a set of common interests between Israel and Arab states in the Gulf, but it
remains unclear if Israel is indeed taking advantage of that situation.
A second risk is creating ‘‘self-fulfilling prophecies’’ through dire statements
of threat. Inflated threat statements and associated calls for military action
can help to create in Iran precisely the monster that is being depicted, by
strengthening the people and organizations within Iran who are arguing for an
operational nuclear deterrent. Eventually, continued emphasis on the existential
nature of the Iranian nuclear threat also could have self-fulfilling dynamics
within Israel, perhaps leading to a socioeconomic tipping point, causing both
talent and finance to flee.
The pervasive fear of Iran carries other unintended consequences. National-
religious thinkers and activists have been quick to grasp the ideological
implication of secular Zionism’s expected failure. Member of Knesset Moshe
Feiglin, the leading national-religious politician in the Likud party, is perhaps
the clearest among these. In a 2011 post on his website, Feiglin wrote that ‘‘we
did not come back to this land for security reasons. What is so safe in placing all

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 85

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

Jews in Ahmedinejad’s nuclear sights . . . we came here to redeem the world

through the kingdom of God . . . this is why this land was given to us . . . and from
this destiny we draw our right for sovereignty in the whole land of Israel.’’37

Implications

Four do’s and four don’t’s for policymakers in the United States and beyond flow
from this analysis:
First, don’t bet on Israel’s next move. The fears expressed in Israel’s domestic
debate are real and rooted, but so are divisions over how to respond. It is anyone’s
guess who will prevail in the struggle over how to respond to Iran.
Second, don’t believe everything you hear. Politicians make statements
for many reasons. Not every comparison of Iran and Nazi Germany needs
to be heeded. Although Israeli fears may be genuine, the Holocaust
analogies are deeply flawed and not a sound guide to policy. Although Prime
Minister Netanyahu does draw on Jewish history as a
compass, he has also used the framing of threats
Israel’s elected (terrorism, Iran) as a tool to garner political support.
Third, don’t walk away. If Israel feels a growing
officials may favor sense of abandonment, it could cause an escalation
an attack, but its of fears and precisely the kinds of responses that
could be most destructive for Israel, U.S. policy,
military leadership
and the region.
shuns one. Finally, don’t feed fear. Talk is not cheap. U.S.
officials, particularly members of Congress, should
stop echoing the worst Israeli hyperbole about
Iranian capabilities and intentions. At the same time, it would help if Iranian
officials stopped making ridiculous statements denying the Holocaust and
declaring their desire to see the Zionist entity wiped from the pages of history.
Israeli leaders should avoid boxing themselves into making unnecessary choices
by giving voice to their deepest fears.
If policymakers avoid these pitfalls, what positive steps should they take to
help rein in fears in Israel and across the region? First, the United States should
quietly help Israel and its neighbors realize their common interests vis-à-vis Iran
and build upon themnot so much to deepen Iran’s isolation but to enable
coordinated action in resolving the stalemate with Iran. The United States
could facilitate, for example, a quiet exchange between security officials from
Israel and other regional players to clarify their respective approaches to the
emerging security environment and to discuss the kinds of transparency and
oversight measures that might ultimately provide reassurance about Iran’s
nuclear intentions.

86 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

Second, the United States should continue

to coordinate its policies toward Iran with
Israel. Despite the reported tensions between
D
on’t bet on Israel’s
President Obama and Prime Minister next move; it is
Netanyahu during the former’s first term in anyone’s guess.
office, relations between the professional
policymaking establishments of the two
countries have never been closer; this coordination will continue to reassure
Israel and to encourage Jerusalem to act with restraint.
Third, the United States should support cooperative frameworks which would
allow the states of the Middle East to begin to discuss, face to face, principles of
regional security. The proposal to convene a conference on a WMD-free zone
in the Middle East may be a vehicle for initiating such discussions. The
architecture for regional coordination and management of security in the
Middle East does not exist today, and is difficult to imagine, but it will remain
elusive unless the United States pushes like-minded states into discussions of the
shared challenges they face. These discussions will eventually need to address
the challenge of banning all weapons of mass destruction in the region.
Finally, and most urgently, the best way to address Israeli fears of Iran is for
Washington to break the logjam in its bilateral relations with Tehran, enable
Iran to clarify its past nuclear activities, accept negotiated limits on its nuclear
activities, and move beyond the years of confrontation which have both
undermined regional security and defined Israeli —Iranian relations.

Notes

1. See, for example: Hellen Kennedy, ‘‘Ex-Mossad boss Meir Dagan says an Israeli attack on
Iran would be ‘stupidest thing ever: Strike on nuclear sites would ignite regional war, he
says,’’ New York Daily News, March 11, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/
ex-mossad-boss-meir-dagan-israeli-attack-iran-stupidist-article-1.1037219#ixzz2HlgjmuOw.
2. ‘‘Poll: 77 percent of Israeli see Iranian Nukes as Existential Threat,’’ The Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs, Vol. 12, no. 4, March 27, 2012, http://jcpa.org/article/poll-77-
percent-of-israelis-see-iran-nukes-as-existential-threat/.
3. Ofer Shelach, ‘‘Not Afraid to Attack, Afraid of a Second Shoa,’’ [in Hebrew] NRG
Ma’ariv, August 10, 2012, http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/394/074.html.
4. The Peace Index [in Hebrew], Tel Aviv University, (December 2010), http://www.nrg.
co.il/online/1/ART2/394/074.html.
5. Lally Weymouth, ‘‘Interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,’’
The Washington Post, June 20, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-20/
opinions/40089054_1_khamenei-enrichment-former-nuclear-negotiator.
6. Peter Hirschberg, ‘‘Netanyahu: It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is
preparing another Holocaust,’’ Haaretz, November 14, 2006, http://www.haaretz.com/
news/netanyahu-it-s-1938-and-iran-is-germany-ahmadinejad-is-preparing-another-holo
caust-1.205137.

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 87

 Ehud Eiran and Martin B. Malin

7. Yanir Yagna, Jonathan Lis, Talila Nesher, and Ofer Aderet, ‘‘There will never be
another Holocaust, Netanyahu vows at Yad Vashem,’’ Haaretz, April 7, 2013, http://
www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/holocaust-remembrance-day/there-will-never-be-another-
holocaust-netanyahu-vows-at-yad-vashem.premium-1.514156.
8. Ari Shavit, ‘‘Ephraim Sneh: To Prevent a Hiroshima in Tel-Aviv,’’ [in Hebrew] Haaretz,
August 22, 2012, http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1807408.
9. ‘‘Peres warns of Iran nuclear weapons threat,’’ Associated Press, March 16, 1995. See
also, Liat Collins, ‘‘Peres: Iran is biggest threat to Israel,’’ The Jerusalem Post, May 10,
1995.
10. ‘‘Text of Peres’s Holocaust Remembrance Day speech,’’ Times of Israel, April 7, 2013,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/text-of-peres-holocaust-remembrance-day-speech/.
11. Shlomo Tzena, ‘‘There Was Never Such a Reckless Discourse’’, [in Hebrew] Yisrael
Ha’Yom, May 4, 2012, http://www.israelhayom.co.il/site/newsletter_article.php?id
16719&newsletter04.05.2012. For the text of Rafsanjani’s speech see, Akbar
Hashemi-Rafsanjani, ‘‘Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day),’’ Voice of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Tehran [in Persian], translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring,
December 14, 2001; http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-
text.html.
12. ‘‘The Full Text of Netanyahu’s Speech to AIPAC 2012,’’ The Algemeiner, March 5,
2012, http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/03/05/full-text-of-netanyahu-speech-to-aipac-
2012/.
13. Moshe Feiglin, ‘‘The Real Threat,’’ [in Hebrew] NRG Ma’ariv, February 19, 2012,
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/338/415.html.
14. Ari Shavit, ‘‘The Decisionmaker Warns: We Can Not Count on the United States to
Attack on Time’’ [in Hebrew], Haaretz, August 10, 2012, http://www.haaretz.co.il/
magazine/1.1797127.
15. Ibid.
16. ‘‘Poll: 77 percent of Israeli see Iranian Nukes as Existential Threat,’’ The Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs, Vol. 12, no. 4, March 27, 2012, http://jcpa.org/article/poll-77-
percent-of-israelis-see-iran-nukes-as-existential-threat/.
17. Ari Shavit, ‘‘The Decisionmaker Warns.’’
18. Ari Shavit, ‘‘Ari Shavit’s Countdown: Former Israeli intelligence Chief Breaks His
Silence on Iran,’’ Haaretz, September 13, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/
magazine/ari-shavit-s-countdown-former-israeli-intelligence-chief-breaks-his-silence-on-
iran-1.464846.
19. Harvey Morris, ‘‘Netanyahu’s ‘Crazy’ Talk Seen Threatening Israel’s Nuclear Ambi-
guity,’’ International Herald Tribune, October 25, 2012, http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.
com/2012/10/25/netanyahus-crazy-talk-seen-threatening-israels-nuclear-ambiguity/.
20. Shmuel Becher, Shmuel Bar, and Rachel Mechtinger, ‘‘Trends Regarding the American
Posture in the Middle-East: A Summary of a Preparatory Meeting for the 2010 Hezliyya
Conference’’ [In Hebrew], Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, July 2010, pp. 6 —8, http://
www.herzliyaconference.org/_Uploads/3037USAMDE.pdf; Ari Shavit, ‘‘Better to Pay
the Heavy Price of a War, Than Allow Iran a Militarized Nuclear Capability, From My
Perspective This is As Plain as Day’’ [In Hebrew], Haaretz, June 16, 2012, http://www.
haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1731171.
21. Moty Basok and Hagai Amit, ‘‘The Economy would Lose 1.5 Billion Shekels a Day, if
50% of it would be Shut’’ [In Hebrew], The Marker, August 14, 2012, http://www.
themarker.com/news/1.1800908.

88 THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013

 The Sum of all Fears

22. Lawrence Solomon, ‘‘Netayahu’s Calculus: A Nuclear Armed Iran Would not need
to Bomb Israel to Destroy its Economy,’’ National Post, August 18, 2012, http://
fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/18/lawrence-solomon-netanyahus-calculus/.
23. Kobi Yeshayahu, ‘‘Despite the Weakening of the Dollar High-Tech exports Jumped 30%
in the Fourth Quarter’’, Globs [In Hebrew], March 3, 2011, http://www.globes.co.il/
news/article.aspx?did1000629196; Central Bureau of Statistics, ‘‘Exports of Goods:
Manufacturing Export by Technological Intensity’’ in ‘‘Statistical Abstract of Israel
2012,’’ http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton63/st16_11x.pdf.
24. Yair Aharoni, ‘‘Inward FDI in Israel and its Policy Context,’’ Columbia FDI Profiles,
Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment, January 31, 2011,
http://www.vcc.columbia.edu/files/vale/documents/Israel_IFDI_Jan_31_11_0.pdf, p. 10.
25. Ibid, pp. 10 —11.
26. Ari Shavit, ‘‘Ephraim Sneh.’’
27. David Remnick, ‘‘The Vegetarian,’’ The New Yorker, September 3, 2012, http://www.
newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_remnick.
28. Ari Shavit, ‘‘Ephraim Sneh.’’
29. Amos Harel, ‘‘The General that is not Ashamed not to Attack,’’ [in Hebrew] Haaretz,
May 11, 2012, http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/1.1704114.
30. Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States,
(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 195—201.
31. Dana Weis, ‘‘Peres: Israel is Getting Near an Attack on Iran’’ [In Hebrew], Channel 2,
November 4, 2011, http://www.mako.co.il/news-military/security/Article-ff3bde8d09f
6331017.htm.
32. Ari Shavit, ‘‘Former Mossad chief: An attack on Iran likely to foment a generations-
long war,’’ Haaretz, September 1, 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/
former-mossad-chief-an-attack-on-iran-likely-to-foment-a-generations-long-war-1.461760.
33. See, for example, Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1987). Walt examined causes of alliance formation in the Middle East
for the majority of the Cold War period and demonstrated that ‘‘balancing is far more
common than bandwagoning.’’
34. Central Bureau of Statistics, ‘‘Expenditure on Gross Domestic Product, at Market
Prices’’ [in Hebrew], in ‘‘National Accounts 1995—2011,’’ February 2012, pp. 62 —63,
http://147.237.248.50/reader/?MIvalcw_usr_view_SHTML&ID719; Central Bureau
of Statistics, ‘‘Press Release’’ [In Hebrew], August 6, 2012, http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/
newhodaot/hodaa_template.html?hodaa201201201.
35. ‘‘Most Israeli Citizens Support an Attack on Iran,’’ [in Hebrew], Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs, March 26, 2012, http://www.jcpa.org.il/Templates/showpage.asp?FID
839&DBID1&LNGID2&TMID99&IID26600.
36. David E. Sanger, ‘‘Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran,’’ New-
York Times, June 1, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/
obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?pagewantedall&_r0.
37. Moshe Feiglin, ‘‘Tash’ab: the Risk and the Opportunity,’’ [in Hebrew] Jewish Leadership,
October 2, 2011, http://he.manhigut.org/society-and-state/4268-q--.

THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY j SUMMER 2013 89