1. Why Iranian nuclear development is seldom discussed in terms of their need to protect themselves against Russia?

2. Why the Russians would be willing to assist Iran in nuclear development?

Maybe I just don’t get out enough, but I scarcely ever hear these aspects of the situation mentioned. Iran has a very long border with Russia. The Russians have longstanding cross-border interests. Only the strongest U.S. and British representations moved the USSR back onside after WWII. If I were running Iran, I’d worry far more about Russia than about Israel. And if I were running Russia, the last thing I’d do would be help my Islamist neighbors get nuclear weapons.

Even stipulating that these people are nuts, have traditional power relationships ceased to apply in that part of the world? Why do we hear so little analysis along these lines?

If Israel is depending upon his word regarding keeping the traditional US committment to them, they should recall who he has on his foreign policy team, and the way he throws his friends and mentors under the bus when things get tough.

Something to consider: if the US does renege on Obama’s commitment to nuke Iran back if Israel is nuked, as I consider likely, then our whole nuclear umbrella is undermined. At that point, countries in Israel’s position (and more are popping up) will realize that they have to preempt; they can no longer deter. Worst case scenario for Obama is Iran nukes Israel, we sit on our hands, and Israel survives. They have a submarine ballistic capability, but even neglecting that they will have no reason not to nuke the Middle East into the stone age, and no allies left to restrain them.

I can. Israel is on her own now. To make sure such a nuke attack doesn’t happen, Israel must destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities as soon as possible, before it’s too late, and then brazen it out, no matter what, when all the noise starts.

Often the point of a diplomatic statement is to bluster in the name of your own country’s pieties while tacitly making a concession.

Consider Obama offering Israel a nuclear shield. OK first, don’t you see that this implicitly accepts the reality of a nuclear Iran? Certainly by inauguration this would be hard to stop anyway, but then again Congress and the anti-war movement has eagerly hobbled President Bush from taking action on Iran for years.

From Iran’s point of view, this statement translates to: “Our previous position was that we would not accept you getting weapons. Our new position is that we will not accept you using them.”

Now consider the credibility of this threat. If Iran attacks, first there will be pleas for calm and preventing an escalation in the region. Dark fears of global nuclear war would be conjured. Obama would have every reason to delay, especially if Israel is destroyed by conventional invasion in the aftermath.

It wouldn’t be spun as procrastination, of course. It would be cloaked in “humanitarian aid” and “diplomacy”. Obama might seek refuge in a declaration of war, which Congress would helpfully spend weeks debating and not even pass. Or a UN security council resolution, which would be helpfully vetoed by Russia. Iran, of course, would use every diplomatic muscle they have to sow confusion and paralysis. Within even a week or two, the calls would be for a compromise that allows any jewish survivors to be airlifted out of Israel in exchange for the US “sparing” Iran. Or, perhaps, retribution would be prevented because of threats from Russia. Or by an oil shock, or even threats against the United States. What, exactly, does defending a country after it is destroyed accomplish? Whatever form it takes, Obama would have some great and statesmanly reason to abandon his pledge. And Iran understands this.

In the right situation, high-minded Obama supporters in the media could even spin it as principled statesmenship that saves the jewish people. That his words today sealed our fate will go unsaid. Because make no mistake, Iran will weigh the true meaning of Obama’s words, and act accordingly.

Reagan suffered gigantically in the media here and in Europe during the 80′s over his nuclear policy. But his policy was driven by game theory that pointed out that it was irrational to retaliate in a nuclear conflict, and so he had to create systems that bound us to irrationality, to force Russia in turn not to attack. Obama is a smart guy, with smart advisors. They can’t not understand this, so I strongly expect that they do and don’t care.

I don’t want to imagine a surprise nuclear attack on Israel by Iran, but I have to, because it’s very possible, and Iran would like nothing better than to pull it off. At the same time, however, with Bush in office, and all the more so with forked-tongue Obama there, I can very well imagine the US not reacting.

It’s also not likely the US, under Bush now, or Obama later, will launch any preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israel’s going to have to do that all by herself.