Iran/Israel -- What Next?

There were two striking wire stories today, both dealing with Iran's potential to gain nuclear weapons.

The first was a statement by the (largely ceremonial) Israeli President suggesting a nuclear armed Iran was dangerous (but Israel would not step in). It is worth noting that much of the speech was in English -- this suggests the audience was not intended to be Israeli.

The second was a comment by a "a top Kuwaiti strategist" suggesting it would be useful if Israel knocked out Iran's nuclear option.

Read below:

"JERUSALEM: Israeli President Shimon Peres today called Iran the world's "greatest problem" but said Israel would not act on its own against the Islamic country's nuclear program.

He said Iran is a danger not just for Israel but for the rest of the world.

Peres said the combination of being a centre of terror and developing a nuclear option is the most dangerous you can think of.

Last week, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel has the "might and power" to defend itself against any threat from Iran, indicating a willingness to use military force if necessary against Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

KUWAIT CITY: The destruction of Irans nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be "less embarrassing" if it was done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday.

Officially Kuwait, like the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, wants a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff between Tehran and the West and will not allow the U.S. to use its territories for any attack on Iran.

But when asked in an interview with the daily Al-Siyassah about the consequences of an Israeli strike on Irans nuclear reactors, analyst and former government adviser Sami al-Faraj said it would not be such a bad thing.

"Honestly speaking, they would be achieving something of great strategic value for the GCC by stopping Irans tendency for hegemony over the area," he said, adding that "nipping it in the bud by Israeli hands would be less embarrassing for us" than if the Americans did it. "

So what do these stories really mean?

Well, first, the "a top Kuwaiti strategist" is not wholly independent of his country's leaders -- Kuwait doesn't work that way -- so Kuwait, and perhaps Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain, would issue purely pro forma complaints should Israel attack Iran. Perhaps, they would not be too upset if America took that step. The Gulf States are worried about Iran.

Second, despite the suggestion that Israel would not act on its own against Iran's nuclear program, Israel is seriously considering such action. That's why the speech was mainly English -- the audience is the international community and not the Israeli public.

Of course, grave dangers exist regardless of what happens. During the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy thought he could still attack Cube because there were no missiles there -- and he was wrong -- there were missiles and an attack might well have destroyed much of the south east United States. Of course, as we now know, the Soviets (while not very nice) were not generally motivated so much by a desire to expand as by a (frankly legitimate) fear that the West wanted to destroy them.

Iran's motivation may well be more apocalyptic.