Iran's steady progress toward developing nuclear weapons is a subject that requires urgent Israeli attention. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian leaders poses a grave danger for Israel because of the real possibility that, under certain circumstances, Tehran would use them against Israel either directly or indirectly. The very existence of Iranian nuclear weapons presents Israel with numerous risks. The highly plausible assumption is that a nuclear Iran would spur nuclear proliferation among other nations in the Middle East which only adds to the dangers facing Israel. We can only hope that sanctions will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, or that the U.S. will launch an attack against Iran. Yet it is unlikely that these hopes will be realized. Moreover, Israel cannot abandon the future of its national security to third parties who may or may not take the necessary decisions. In the absence of another solution, Israel has no choice but to attack Iran's nuclear facilities while these facilities are still vulnerable. A comprehensive study I conducted at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University that was published this week (titled "An Integrated Imperative: Attack Iran and Launch a Regional Peace Initiative") concluded that if Israel were to attack, Iran could be expected to retaliate forcefully. However, Iran's ability to exact a significant price from Israel or other parties should not be exaggerated. Even the most pessimistic postulations hold that the damage Israel can expect to sustain would be significantly less than the destruction a nuclear attack could potentially unleash. If Israel attacks, it could to an extent damage its relationship with the U.S. and other powers; it could also exacerbate the Arab-Israeli conflict. Worst of all is the possibility that Iran will renew its drive toward nuclear weapons, determined to exact revenge on Israel. To prevent such damage and to motivate the international community to take steps to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, the study also concluded that an Israeli attack on Iran must be accompanied by efforts to achieve Middle East peace. Those efforts could be partly based on the Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002. In weighing the pros and cons of an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, the study showed that integrating a military strike with an Israeli initiative for Middle East peace could tip the scales. An Israeli peace plan could significantly decrease the potential harm to relations with the U.S. and it would also contribute a great deal toward effective international efforts that would prevent Iran from renewing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the integration of a military strike against Iran with a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative would also have positive repercussions for Israeli security both in the long and short term. The benefits of both when the two elements are integrated correctly is nearly double that of each element separately. Therefore, my recommendation when it comes to the most important issue on Israel's security agenda is to adopt a two-track approach: Israel should attack Iran's nuclear facilities while it is still possible (and if there is no other way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons), and at the same time present a serious proposal for a comprehensive Middle East peace. The crisis surrounding a possible pre-emptive Israeli strike could paradoxically provide an opportunity for peace in Israel and the region. The writer is a professor emeritus of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the International Academic Advisory Board at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University.
