Israel and the crisis of living with a nuclear Iran - 1

Introduction

"Iran is building a new Persian empire from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria and the borders of Lebanon."
Ephraim Sneh, former deputy defense minister of Israel
"Israel for the first time since its independence is facing with a life threat."
Avi Ditcher, Israel's internal security minister
After World War II, no country has been worried about his national security as much as Israel, and its reason why I so clear. Israel has experienced six wars with his neighbors after his declaration of existence.
Wars such as 1948-9; Sinay War 1956; d day War of 1967; erosion wars of years of 1969-70, Ramadan war (Yom Kippur) in 1972; and the Lebanon war in 1982, ie on average each decade of their life, they have been engaged in an all-out war. In addition, in the first Persian Gulf War in 1991 he also was under Iraqi missile attacks, and in the summer of 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon the myth of its invincibility was questioned.
In Israel's security doctrine two inner (neighboring countries) and external (Warring non-neighboring States) rings are threatening the survival of the regime, but after 1990, this government that saw none of its neighbors in terms of its counterpart in military power started to find solutions for the problem of the second ring which were Iraq and Iran.
Now, Saddam Hussein's regime has collapsed, and now only Iran remains on the second ring. In the same vein, some believe that the Iraq war was about oil, but it is hard to find evidence to support this claim. Instead it can be stated that this was a war for the sake of Israel's security. As Philip Zelikow, a former member of the Board of advisors of Foreign Intelligence of president and Executive Director of the Commission of eleventh of September and adviser of Condoleezza Rice, former foreign minister of the United States stated in his speech at the University of Virginia in September 2003: "The real threat from Iraq was not for America but for Israel."
According to this point, according to Sharon, strategic partnerships between America and Israel had reached to "unprecedented proportions" and Israeli intelligence officials had given a wide range of warning reports on Iraq's mass destruction weapons' programs to Washington.
In September 2003 (Shahrivar 1381) also Shimon Peres, Israel's president, told reporters: "The war against Saddam Hussein must be started. Checks and inspections are good for decent people. But deceitful people can easily overcome them."
In the meantime, after Saddam's defeat in the 2003 war, Iran was considered as the most important security threat to Israel's existence. That is why in the Middle East, Israel has aligned negative and conflicting reactions from the beginning of Iran's nuclear crisis which are in the same direction with the policies of America in order to limit Iran. In fact, unlike other countries which have shown vague and informal reaction to Iran's nuclear program, Israeli officials openly know the program as a threat to their security and want it to be stopped in any way.
Zionist regime with this excuse that Iran tends to build these weapons in order to be in balance with Israel, asks for stopping Iran's nuclear program and even emphasizes on force to stop it, because otherwise, it will encounter new game principles in the Middle East and will lose its strategic domination that has had over Arabic and Islamic countries for last decades.
From this description, this article tries to answer the question that under what conditions the United States and Israel might want or are forced to live with a nuclear Iran? In response to this question it must be said that if the United States and Israel know the diplomatic and military operations failed, they will be forced to accept some possible options in this regard that Israel will be less likely, because executing it may cause abandoning the interpreted military option, and the United States instead of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities turns to the inhibition.
Due to these issues, this option may be risky for Israel. This option may also be difficult for the Americans, because it is likely that the Israelis believe that America has turned to appeasement with Iran and independently attack Iran. However, the failure of other options makes turning to other options for living with a nuclear Iran necessary for both of them that it will be discussed here.

* United States' deterrence against Iran

In this case, the United States stating threating the use of nuclear weapons or applying these weapons against Israel (or any other country in the area) is considered as a threat against the United States, would tend to have the clear policy of retaliate against Iran.
Most countries of the region, including Iran, acknowledge about security guarantee of Israel by America by the nuclear weapons, and the issue can be repeatedly seen in America's politicians' conversations. However, some Israeli experts point out that this guarantee of the United States is not enough, and if Israel's deterrence power be alongside deterrence of United States, it will be more efficient.

* Direct security guarantees of the United States to Israel

Another way id related adjusting and making the United States' guarantees official for Israel that can be as mutual defense treaty, a joint resolution, an executive agreement or even issuing statements by President of the United States. This guarantee can be in form of a wholehearted commitment or obligation only in its defense against the onslaught of mass destruction or only nuclear weapons. In this regard, some have pointed to the many obstacles in the way of such measures. The agreement has immense benefits to Israel and can reduce their military spending and focus more on domestic issues of their own as NATO member countries.
In this context, the deployment of the United States' forces or Patriot missiles in Israel could increase the level of security assurance. Other measures may be Israel's acceptance in multi-tiered system of global anti-missile of United States, participating in defense planning or direct and permanent relationship with the United States' satellite warning systems.
However, some Israeli experts say that because of the reduced influence of the United States in the world and especially in the Middle East, common conflicts in Iraq, the return of Russia as a global power and other changes are needed so that Israel reduce his dependence on the United States to meet the needs of its security. So in their sight, any discussion for a defense treaty between the two countries is not realistic, and providing report of America's intelligence community based on it that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb represents many limitations on the power of the United States.

* Multilateral assurances to Israel

The prospect of it that Iran with nuclear capability and the expansion of such weapons in the region led to a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of new alliances such as a defense treaty between the United States and Israel, as well as a membership of the regime in North Atlantic Treaty Organization which has already begun its efforts to join it.
In the meantime, NATO membership option may be symbolic, but the development of formal relations with the United States and Europe could be more appropriate. However, the Zionist regime should face opposition of France and other NATO countries that have close ties with the Arabs. Newly, there are reports that Tel Aviv tries to execute its primary plans for membership in NATO that before this, it had started its limited cooperation in the form of Mediterranean Treaty in 1994.
Ashkenazi Gabi, chairman of the joint Chiefs of armed forces, attended at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels. He attended the meeting while before this the Israeli regime's military and political leaders had also affirmed of the membership principle in NATO.
Israel hopes to build a global legitimacy for itself by using NATO and rebuild its army, using it as a shield against Iran and in general use it as military superiority against Muslims. Previously, most officials of the Zionist regime had insisted on its membership in NATO.