Nuclear weaponry are dangerous and deserve to be treated with the respect danger commands. I dislike in the extreme the anxiety I experience when Israel refers to nuclear arms; the demeanor with which such weaponry is discussed by those who prefer an active military approach to ‘peace keeping’ by Israel is of particular concern because of the high degree of collateral damage Israel has proven itself willing to accept in order to make points not seen as helpful for world stability by other nations.

Nuclear capacity needs to be treated with understanding of the harm carelessness or abuse can create, and policies on use must be international to have value. Israel’s nuclear capacity must be included in any international consideration for steps forward to made in dealing with the danger that lack of unity can present when multiple nations are armed.

The following is an approach to a realistic foreign policy for the administration of President Obama.

Palestinian Independent State
The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East. Many expect, as previously stated by Iran and many Arab counties, that they would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state. However; many political analysts have suggested that any resolution about Palestinian state would be a non-starter with Israel. The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East.

There is no dispute that Iran is already a nuclear state. The states with this capacity are many; among them are Japan and Germany. But, there is a great difference between being a nuclear state, i.e., nuclear fuel cycle capacity, and a state with nuclear bomb, such as India, USA, Russia, England, France, China, Israel and Pakistan.

The steps required to allay our fear that Iran in the future may develop Nuclear Bomb are:

1. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Iranian Consortium:
USA should join the consortium among others Japan, Germany, France and England to actively monitor the Iranian fuel cycle activity too. IAEA has consistently asserted that the agency could not find any indications that Iran is diverting the fuel cycle for nuclear bomb development. Iran has asserted that their activities are limited to development of fuel for nuclear reactor.

2. Nuclear Shield
An international nuclear shield for all nations in the Middle East, including Iran;

3. A nuclear- bomb-free Middle East.
This action will remove any pressure from Iran to develop nuclear bomb in the future for deterrence against nuclear bomb Israeli state.

Unfortunately the attentions of the past two US Presidents (Clinton and Bush) were on nuclear fuel cycle of Iran. They both ignored that Israel had nuclear bombs. The Middle East should be the starting point toward President Obama’s dream of a world free of all nuclear bombs.

Please also provide a cite for that claim. The key word is “want”. I’ve never heard an Israeli official state in the name of Israel that they expect Iran to unilaterally drop a bomb, but more that they expect Iran to escalate its dominance in the region, with an overly ideological bent.

FROM GORDON PRATHER:

“…And what message did DEBKAfile and the Likudniks receive?

That if Hillary’s “diplomacy” fails – as it will – to “halt” Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded “nuclear activities” Israel will be left “with no option” but to attack and destroy them before the year is out!”

ENTIRE PRATHER ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/prather/scenario-for-2009-israeli-strike-on-iran/

And as I’ve written here about Hamas’ Charter–I don’t give a rat’s ass about what a political movement or party writes in a platform. They’re hardly worth the paper they’re written on. What a party DOES is the only thing that counts.