LA Times: Iran and Israel: Who's the Bigger Threat?

Several readers responding to Israeli historian Benny Morris' Feb 14 Op-Ed article calling for a military attack to stop Iran's nuclear program noted that Morris did not acknowledge the Middle East's lone nuclear power: Israel. Some said the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked for the United States and the Soviet Union, so the likelihood of two nuclear-armed states in the Mideast wiping each other out is minimal. But others who discussed Israel's status as a nuclear power said it, and not Iran, presented the greater threat to peace. Reader Jon Williams of Goleta, California wrote: "Benny Morris' logic goes: Because Tehran is intent on building a nuclear weapon it will undoubtedly use against Israel, the United States, or possibly Russia, must launch a massive preemptive strike against Iran, or else Israel will itself attack Iran with a nuclear weapon. "Talk about holding a gun to the world's head." "Iran does not have a nuclear device, claims not to be building one, and hasn't even talked about striking Israel militarily. Israel, on the other hand, has the bomb now. Who's the greater danger to both Israel and world peace? Israel is dragging the rest of us along into a world of hurt." My logic is simple: Diplomacy and sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program. If it isn't stopped militarily, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the near future. There is a vital difference between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran: The Iranian regime is bad. It assaulted and murdered its own people following President Mahmoud Amadinejad's fraudulent reelection in 2009. It supports terrorists beyond its own borders, including against Israel, and has threatened Israel's destruction.