Why oh why did the New York Times publish Benny Morris?

What Benny Morris writes in today’s New York Times is madness. Mr. Morris not only suggests that Israel will strike Iran – and that this will be good for Israel, Iran, the United States and the Middle East – but also recommends this course of action! His thousand word prescription is predicated on the notion that should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon it will use it immediately.

That is to suggest that Iran is 1) going to become the first nation to use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear power and 2) take action directly counter to its interests. Iran may be many things but its leadership – the actual leadership, not President Ahmadinejad - is neither suicidal nor irrational. The logic of nuclear weapons is ultimately the logic of establishing a defensible position.

The mullahs having acquired power in the Islamic revolution have shown absolutely no interest in giving up that power – to either domestic challenger or foreign challengers. From their perspective, Iran’s position is tenuous. The United States occupies nations to its east and west. Israel, protected by the United States, is the only nuclear power in the region and seemingly acts with impunity. Having nuclear weapons not only vaults a nation into the ranks of ‘grown-up nations’ but affords that state a measure of security unparalleled in history. Additionally, Iran’s treatment by the west along with India’s accommodation by the United States has demonstrated that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is defunct: Iran is denied the right to development of nuclear power enshrined in that treaty and India, having illicitly developed nuclear weapons, is guaranteed nuclear power.

If, as seems likely, Iran’s goal is a nuclear weapon it seeks one so that the state and the regime are protected from outside aggression. It is difficult to describe how unlikely and inflammatory it is to suggest that Iran, having acquired a nuclear weapon, would strike Israel first. The leadership in Tehran knows as well as the rest of the world that such action would be suicidal and would certainly invite nuclear retaliation by Israel and the deposition of the mullahs.

Given the current climate and Israel’s justified fear of the bellicose rhetoric coming from the figurehead President in Tehran, the last thing the region needs is an opinion piece in the New York Times suggesting that 1) Israel should attack Iran and 2) if Israel doesn’t attack Iran, Iran will attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Rather, the United States should be hopeful that the calming steps taken by the Bush administration in recent days will lead to reduced tensions and an Iran than no longer feels impelled by security fears to acquire nuclear weapons.