Regular readers of this blog will know that my colleagues and I have recently been discussing the growing possibility of Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear programme (I highly recommend listening to Business Monitor’s Podcast on this subject). However, let us now do a little thought experiment: flash forward five years, and imagine that Iran is now a confirmed nuclear power. Would this really be such a big threat to Israel and the rest of us?

At first glance, a nuclear Iran would be extremely dangerous for Israel. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated a few years ago that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’. In addition, Israel’s 7.5 million-strong population is 92% urbanised, and the country’s relatively compact nature means that a few nuclear strikes on Tehran’s part could potentially destroy a good chunk of the Israeli state. Furthermore, even if Iran did not attack Israel, possession of nuclear weapons could embolden Tehran to become even more aggressive towards Israel, since the ruling clerics would feel immune to Israeli retaliation. Finally, a nuclear Iran would surely encourage Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and possibly a few other states to go nuclear too.

Well… that all sounds pretty bad, right? But let’s think about all this for a minute. Realistically, I find it hard to believe that a nuclear Iran would suddenly decide to launch an atomic strike on Israel. Why would they? Also, bear in mind that Israel has around 80 nuclear warheads of its own, some of which can probably be fired from submarines (and thus capable of evading an Iranian missile attack). Even taking into account Iran’s bigger and more dispersed population (74 million), Israel has sufficient capability to wipe Iran off the map. In other words, it has the ability to deter Tehran.

As for the notion that nuclear weapons would allow Iran to behave with impunity, I am not sure if this will make much difference. Tehran is already an assertive force in the Middle East, but it is unlikely to invade any country, for example. The clerics may be repressive, but they aren’t completely mad. Finally, regarding the possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, I suspect that the US would bring overwhelming pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia to prevent them from going nuclear. Washington is the top ally of Cairo and Riyadh and has considerable levers to pull if necessary. Also, keep in mind that South Korea and Japan have refrained from developing nukes, despite the threat posed by North Korea.

While everyone’s attention is focused on Iran’s nukes, I would argue that Pakistan is a bigger threat. Pakistan already has 70-90 warheads, and the Pakistani state is looking much more fragile than Iran. Were Pakistan to experience a revolution, it would most likely be Islamist and anti-Western in nature, whereas if Iran experienced another revolution, it would probably be secular and potentially even pro-Western in nature. Furthermore, Pakistan is clearly associated with militant Islam and Afghanistan, whereas Iran has very few if any proven ties with al-Qaeda.

I can’t help but wonder if the real race is not whether Israel will attack Iran before it goes nuclear, but whether Tehran will develop nukes before a popular uprising sweeps out the clerics and installs a more liberal government, greatly reducing the nuclear threat.