Conservative Israelis view Iran as highly threatening. At a conference I attended in Jerusalem earlier this month, one Israeli speaker equated present-day Iran with Nazi Germany. He also saw Russia, Europe, and even America as not doing enough against this threat before it grows even stronger – just as Britain and France acted vis-à-vis Hitler in the late 1930s.

Furthermore, many Israelis not only reject last year's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate finding that Iran ceased its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons in 2003, but believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel if Tehran acquires them.

Is this image of the Iranian threat to Israel overdrawn? Whether it acquires nuclear weapons or not, Iran certainly does not have the capability to invade and occupy neighboring countries the way that Nazi Germany did. And whatever else it may be, the leadership of the Islamic Republic is not irrational: Tehran is well aware that any Iranian attack on Israel would result in American and/or Israeli retaliation against Iran.

Some Israelis I met, though, insist that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is indeed irrational, and that he would be willing to launch a nuclear attack against Israel no matter what dire consequences would result for Iran. Others discount this; they do not believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal. Some of them, however, did lay out a more plausible scenario of how the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would threaten Israel.

It runs like this: In the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah forces based in Lebanon that took place in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah fired numerous missiles into Israel even though then non-nuclear Iran could not protect it from Israeli retaliation. If Iran had nuclear weapons, Iran might feel emboldened to supply even more powerful missiles to Hezbollah for attacking Israel in the next Israeli-Hezbollah war (which Israelis I spoke to are sure is coming).

Further, Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would not only deter Israel from retaliating directly against Iran for arming Hezbollah, but may even limit how Israel responds to Hezbollah itself.

In the conservative Israeli view, then, the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons will only lead to stepped-up Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas attacks against Israel.

But is this view of Iranian intentions accurate? Whether it is or not is less important than whether the Israeli government believes it to be true. The inflammatory statements of Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel off the map clearly do not serve to relieve Israeli anxieties on this score. And if the Israeli government does indeed fear (justifiably or not) what will happen after Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the question that arises is: Will Israel take action to prevent Iran from acquiring them?

The possibility that Israel is contemplating unilateral military action was suggested in a speech on April 9 by former (and perhaps future) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem at the conference I attended. He then stated, "We are united in Israel that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. I would even say it differently: that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons." (A video of his saying this entitled, "Diplomacy 101: Russia, Iran, Israel and the United States," can be seen at www.themedialine.org).

Statements such as these strongly suggest that Israel is indeed contemplating unilateral military action aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The result of this, however, might be an even more hardline Tehran increasing support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite groups in Iraq and elsewhere, and redoubling its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. This is a possibility that everyone, including the Israeli conservatives, need to be mindful of.

--

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University.