As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don’t have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That’s how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.
I’m not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn’t really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don’t trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.
Iran can’t use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it’d be an empty threat. Iran can’t nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.
MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn’t prevent conventional wars.
Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion.
So it’s just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they’re even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, “death to Israel?” Sure, but that’s just part of their discourse. The Iranians use “death to” as a synonym for “down with.” They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.
An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don’t prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan’s arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.
You can speculate that nukes wouldn’t prevent further expansion of Israel, but that’s ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn’t just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It’s only when some of Israel’s neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn’t possible.
So it’s just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
I mean, haven’t they?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel?
The IAEA cites several officials that have stated that Iran is able to manufacture nuclear weapons, and pundits on state tv have threatened Israel with total destruction and “annihilation”. It doesn’t take much to put two and two together. They’re overt threats, but threats nonetheless.
The Soviets didn’t just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check.
This ignores the many proxy wars the US and USSR fought in many regions. I wouldn’t necessarily call that very stabilizing. Meanwhile the theory that wars won’t be declared between nuclear powers is actively being tested by several states at the moment, prodding and probing nuclear-capable alliances to test where the boundary lies.
Results achieved in the past do not guarantee success in the future.
As much as I agree that Israel is a destabilizing force and that you have their MO fairly spot on, Israel doesn’t seem to be using its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent for invasion. They don’t have to, they have significant conventional forces with US backing, making invasion nigh-impossible anyway. That’s how it went in the past at least with the various regional wars.
I’m not sure an Iranian bomb would stabilize much if anything. Israel sees it as a direct existential threat and will stop at nothing to prevent or disable such a weapon. Iran has also repeatedly threatened to use it on Israel offensively, which doesn’t really bode well for peace either. Suppose Iran does lob a bomb at Israel, how would they respond? Or what if Israel strikes first? I don’t trust either party to be reasonable and responsible here tbh.
Iran can’t use the weapon to threaten Israel as you say, because it’d be an empty threat. Iran can’t nuke Israel without getting nuked right back. Israel knows this, so they can continue their expansions just fine.
MAD doctrine prevents nuclear wars from breaking out, but as we have been seeing recently it doesn’t prevent conventional wars.
So it’s just a coincidence that no neighboring country has threatened them with outright military invasion since they got nukes?
And when has Iran ever threatened to use a bomb against Israel? They deny they’re even trying to get a bomb. Do their politicians like to say, “death to Israel?” Sure, but that’s just part of their discourse. The Iranians use “death to” as a synonym for “down with.” They say the same thing during political campaigns against opposing political candidates.
An Iranian bomb would stabilize the situation because the same pattern has occurred in numerous other conflicts. Yes, nukes don’t prevent conventional wars, but they do prevent total war between nuclear powers. Russia would have never attempted its invasion of Ukraine if Ukraine still had their nukes. India and Pakistan’s arsenals are what kept the recent conflict between them from spiraling further than it did.
You can speculate that nukes wouldn’t prevent further expansion of Israel, but that’s ahistorical analysis. Having an opponent that is just as well armed as you are makes you act more carefully. The Soviets didn’t just keep expanding across Europe, precisely because the US had the bomb to hold them in check. Israel has been able to act with such impunity because ultimately none of its neighbors can stand up to it. It’s only when some of Israel’s neighbors actually have nukes, and they have to address their neighbors as equals, that peace is actually possible. As long as one side holds complete military dominance, real peace isn’t possible.
I mean, haven’t they?
The IAEA cites several officials that have stated that Iran is able to manufacture nuclear weapons, and pundits on state tv have threatened Israel with total destruction and “annihilation”. It doesn’t take much to put two and two together. They’re overt threats, but threats nonetheless.
This ignores the many proxy wars the US and USSR fought in many regions. I wouldn’t necessarily call that very stabilizing. Meanwhile the theory that wars won’t be declared between nuclear powers is actively being tested by several states at the moment, prodding and probing nuclear-capable alliances to test where the boundary lies.
Results achieved in the past do not guarantee success in the future.