Iran, Israel and the Bomb

The International Herald Tribune is a subsidiary of The New York Times. Important to keep in mind when reading this ridiculous article by Idiotarian-of-the-year wannabe Jonathan Powers.

And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.

The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.

The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.

There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel.

I know what you're thinking: This guy can't be serious. Well, he's bloody serious. It gets a lot sillier still after this.

Moral equivalence. Ignorance of history (definition of history being anything older than 2 weeks). It never seems to end.

HonestReporting has a detailed debunking of this piece of crap.

I sent the following e-mail to the IHT:

Dear Sirs,

I take great issue with the article by Jonathan Powers in the IHT of September 22nd. In essence, mr Powers draws a moral equivalence between Iran and Israel, where no possible comparison can be made.
Israel is a Western oriented democracy. It has (presumably) had nuclear weapons since the 70's, and the country is about as likely to use them as is the United Kingdom. A key difference is that the UK does not have multiple enemies sworn to its destruction!
Iran on the other hand is a theocracy, a dictatorship whose leadership is responsible to no one. Its president is already on record as saying that the Arab/Muslim world can suffer a nuclear exchange with the Jews. Israel would be destroyed, whereas the Muslims would "only be damaged". Iran is a sponsor of world terrorism, arguably the world's foremost. Even if Iran would not use its nukes against Israel (or other perceived enemies) directly, further proliferation is inevitable. It would be easier than ever before for terrorists to aquire a nuclear weapon.

I find it incomprehensible that a sane person would designate Israel and its nuclear capabilities as the cause of the Iranian nuclear aspirations.
Israel has NEVER been a threat to Iran, while the reverse can obviously not be maintained.

I have no illusions as to your willingness to fully retract the outrageous comparison between two countries that could not be more different. But you have definitely lost another reader.
Regards,

You should write them too. Let them know what you think of their inability to see any differences between Israel and Iran.