RSS

Wed, May 20th 2009, 17:44

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

Bertram avoids discussing the consequences of a potential failure of stopping Iran’s nuclear program by diplomatic means and thus of Iran having nuclear weapons in addition to its continuing threat to wipe Israel off the map. If he really thinks that an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities implies more costs than benefits (that assessment itself may be right or wrong), he should suggest alternative policies instead of shifting the attention away from the core problem of Iran threatening and destabilizing the whole Middle East by asking to put pressure on Israel.

If Israel really were to opt for a military strike to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it obviously would do so because unlike Bertram it thinks that the benefits outweigh the costs (that assessment itself may be equally right or wrong).

So if Bertram is confident that an Israeli military strike is counter-productive and has good reasons as to why an alternative policy (yet to be presented by him) in case of a failure of Western diplomacy toward Iran has a better chance of protecting Israel from Iranian hostilities, then there would be no need to put pressure on Israel as it could easily be convinced.

By neglecting to present a more effective policy option Bertram makes a fundamental policy analysis error: Policies can only be evaluated relatively to one another. If there is no policy that is more effective in stopping Iran from attaining the nuclear bomb than an Israeli military strike, then this is the best policy no matter its imperfectness.