Who Should Stop Iran?

There seem to be two schools of thought emerging on the nature of the threat a nuclear Iran would pose.

The first, typified by this op-ed in the WSJ, posits a fairly grim but nonetheless conventional threat: a nuclear Iran is better situated to intimidate America's regional allies, threaten world oil supplies and possibly catalyzes a regional arms race.

The second, typified by this op-ed by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, suggests that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel in pursuit of a second Holocaust (which would promptly be followed by a much, much larger bloodbath in Iran).

Even if you discount, as I do, the notion that Iran is suicidal, it seems clear that Iran poses an existential threat to the state of Israel. But it also seems clear that Iran, while extremely dangerous to our interests in the Middle East, does not pose an existential threat to the U.S.

The question that will urgently confront the next administration already saddled with two wars in the region is: should that distinction matter?