What If Bernard Lewis was rIght about nuclear Iran welcoming Apocalypse rather than seeking deterrence?
In that case, he said that "mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the
Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement." Bernard Lewis - The Wall Street Journal Aug. 8, 2006
It would appear that the overwhelming majority of Israelis participating in policy discussions relating to the Iranian nuclear challenge think that Iran seeks nukes to protect their leadership from regime change.
Unfortunately, these policy makers and analysts simply cannot comprehend that Iranian Twelvers could actually welcome an apocalypse set into motion by an Iranian nuclear strike and the response that would follow. Without saying it explicitly, they are arguing that there is some set of universal values that has some kind of veto power over belief systems when adhering to those beliefs can have unsavory results when judged by these "universal values".
This is not an inconsequential academic disagreement.
The attitude of policy makers and analysts towards the threat of a nuclear Iran would be radically different if they thought that there was even a 25% chance that Bernard Lewis is correct.
I daresay that if they gave Bernard Lewis the weight his opinion deserves that we would have already "pulled the trigger" on a massive operation long ago.
Dr. Aaron Lernerand his late father Dr. Joseph Lerner founded the Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA) government accredited news organization in 1992,which provides an ongoing analysis of developments in Arab-Israeli relations.