What about Israel's nuclear weapons?

I don't think we see Israel threatening Iran with glorious atomic elimination. :-)

Is it the obliteration of Iran an official public policy goal of the Israeli government?

Well, I guess since Israel hasn't nuked any Islamic states yet (after much provocation), I feel justified in concluding Israel's arsenal is for deterrence only.

http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1993/72940405-72943110.htm

(4th paragraph)

The existence of the nuclear weapons is in itself a threat to the Arab states.

Why have we allowed Israel to develop such an arsenal, since it vastly increases the risk of their being used someday by a radical government? We have made serious efforts worldwide to otherwise curtail proliferation.

Also, would the Arab states be justified in preemptively attacking Israel because of its weapons of mass destruction?

Because Israel's nukes won't be exploding on our shores any time soon.

From 1948 to the early 80s Israel's neighbors banded together and attacked or threatened to attack her in wars of aggression and state supported terrorism. Israel successfully fended off and defeated these attacks at great cost of life and limb. How many times has Israel been attacked by a neighboring states since the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal? Nukes successfully convinced Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etal that it was time to cease attacking Israel. Israel's nukes have served their purpose and will continue to deter threats including Iran's. I say good for the Israelis.

The mere existence of WMD does not make them dangerous, any more than a gun all by itself is dangerous. If that were the case, all the nuclear powers would have to declare war on themselves over WMD.

The proclivity toward actually using WMD (like Saddam did in northern Iraq) is the danger. Hence our war in Iraq. Should the Iranian government display a willingness to employ WMDs (like Saddam actually did), then it would be a real problem.

There is zero evidence Israel plans on preemptively using it's nuke arsenal against any Arab state, nor have any statements been made in the past that would indicate such a plan is in the works. Iran, on the other hand....

Semi, what is this "justified" nonsense? The only question is whether the Arab governments CAN pre-emptively attack Israel for having nuclear weapons (Yes), and whether the Israelis can defeat them when they do (odds say Yes). Will the Arabs miscalculate and attack when they probably won't win? God knows.

Our only question is whose side are we on.

When Iran sits on that much oil, they don'
t need nuke power for civilian purposes. Kerry/Edwards didn't learn from Clinton's disasterous AF arrangement with North Korea apparently.

Due to the failures of every U.S. administration since Israel was created, we are inextricably tied to its existence. It cannot survive without our backing. The Arab states in the region view both countries as one and the same, and therein lies the problem. It's like competing in a contest and refereeing, too.

Allowing Israel to arm itself with nuclear weapons while suppressing the efforts of its neighbors places its enemies in a no-win, no-place-to-go, posture of desperation. If anything, it may speed up the pace of their aggression toward Israel before, in their view, it gets to a point of total domination. None of them should have such weapons.

That is why the war in Iraq is so critical, and why the reasons for our engagement are so transparent to the Arab states in the region.

As for the Iraquis, they don't care who got rid of Saddam, as long as somebody got the job done. I believe they will patiently wait us out, while becoming the preeminent power in the region. In the process, we will be drained of human and material resources.