Current synergies between Palestinian statehood and regional nuclear war remain generally ignored. Once formally established, a Palestinian state could significantly impact the Israel-Iran balance of power, and also lead to the acceleration of competitive risk-taking in the region.

Though any impending war between Israel and Iran would be fought without a “Palestine” factor, one predictable outcome of such a conflict would be increased pressure on Israel to accept a dedicated enemy state. To be sure, Iran’s leaders are generally unconcerned about Palestinian well-being per se, but even a faux commitment in Tehran to Palestinian statehood could weaken Israel’s overall safety.

Any formal creation of “Palestine” would be viewed by Iran as favorable to its own regional power position. For Israel, a “Two-State Solution” would enlarge not “only” the jihadi terror threat to Israel (both conventional and unconventional), but also the prospects for a catastrophic regional war. Even if such a war were fought while Iran was still pre-nuclear, Tehran could use radiation dispersal weapons or electromagnetic pulse weapons (EMP) against Israel and/or target Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor with conventional rockets.

In one conspicuously ignored scenario, Iran’s North Korean nuclear ally would engage in direct belligerency against the Jewish State. Should that be allowed (and it would not be without historical precedent), a continuously ambiguous Israeli nuclear posture could fatally undermine Jerusalem’s nuclear deterrent.

In this connection, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations ought never be confined to “general principles.” Instead, specific issues will need to be addressed head-on: borders; Jerusalem; relations between Gaza and the “West Bank;” the Cairo Declaration of June 1974 (an annihilationist “phased plan”); the Arab “right of return” and cancellation of the “Palestine National Charter” (which calls unapologetically for eradication of Israel “in stages”).

Memory will be important. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), “parent” of the extant Palestine Authority (PA), was formed in 1964, three years before there were any “Israel Occupied Territories.” So what, it must be asked, was this terror group seeking to “liberate?”

For Israel, among other things, any justice-based plan for Palestinians would also need to acknowledge the historical and legal rights of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria. Such an acknowledgment would represent an indispensable corrective to flagrantly lawless Hamas claims of resistance “by any means necessary” and to literally genocidal Palestinian calls for “liberation from the river to the sea.” On its face, the authentic Palestinian expectation is always that Israel become part of “Palestine.”

What about North Korea and future wars in the Middle East? Pyongyang has a documented history of active support for Iran and Syria. On ties with Damascus, it was Kim Jung Un who built the Al Kibar nuclear reactor for the Syrians at Deir al-Zor. This is the same facility that was preemptively destroyed by Israel in its “Operation Orchard” (also known in certain Israeli circles as “Operation Outside the Box”) on September 6, 2007. In the absence of “Orchard,” new post-Assad jihadists in Syria (primarily HTS) would have inherited an already-existing nuclear weapons option.

For Israel, nuclear weapons, doctrine and strategy remain essential to national survival. But the country’s traditional policy of “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” or “bomb in the basement” should immediately be updated.

The key objective of needed changes would be more credible Israeli nuclear deterrence, a goal that would correlate closely with “selective nuclear disclosure.” While counter-intuitive, Iran will need to be convinced that Israel’s nuclear arms are not too destructive for purposeful operational use. In what amounts to an arguably supreme irony, the credibility of Israel’s nuclear deterrent could sometime vary inversely with its presumed destructiveness.

For the moment, Iran should be considered as a rational foe. It remains conceivable, of course, that Iran could still act irrationally, perhaps in alliance with other more-or-less rational states and/or kindred jihadi terror groups, but such prospects ought to be anticipated as exceptional, episodic, or idiosyncratic.

What about non-Arab Pakistan? Unless Jerusalem were to consider Pakistan a genuine enemy, Israel has no present-day nuclear foes. Still, as an unstable Islamic state, Pakistan is continuously subject to coup d’état by jihadi elements and is aligned in various ways with both Saudi Arabia and China. At some point the Sunni Saudi kingdom could decide to “go nuclear” itself, largely because of Iran’s “Shiite” nuclear program.

Would such a consequential decision by Riyadh represent a net gain or net loss for Israel? It’s not too soon to ask this question. Derivatively, Jerusalem should consider potentially correlative decisions by Egypt and Turkey. Facing a nuclearizing Iran, might Israel actually be better off with a simultaneously nuclearizing Egypt and/or Turkey?

On elemental nuclear issues. truth may remain counter-intuitive. For Israeli nuclear deterrence to work longer-term, Iran will need to be told more rather than less about Israel’s nuclear targeting doctrine and the invulnerability of Israel’s nuclear forces/infrastructures.

In concert with such changes, Jerusalem should better clarify its presently too-opaque “Samson Option.” The key objective of such clarifications would not be to suggest Israel’s willingness to die with its belligerent Arab neighbors, but to enhance nuclear deterrence.

For Israel, the risks of Palestinian statehood could prove irreversible, irremediable, and existential. These risks would be enlarged if they were incurred simultaneously with an Israel-Iran war. It follows that Jerusalem’s most basic security obligation should be to keep Iran non–nuclear and to oppose Palestinian statehood in any form. On this obligation, the “whole” would assuredly be greater than the sum of its “parts.”

Long before the current Gaza War, a significant fraction of Palestinians wanted Jews “annihilated.” This unhidden exterminatory sentiment remains rooted in certain canonical hadith, and is specifically quoted in the Hamas Covenant. Regarding the Covenant’s explicit call for genocide of “The Jews”:

… the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: “The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: `Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…” (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985).

There is also an ideological role, as Palestinian and other Islamist terror groups and states use Martyrdom to convince their populations to die in the pursuit of killing Jews. To survive amid multiple synergies, Jerusalem must first learn how to transform an enemy presumption that links “martyrdom” to the conquest of time (and even death).

In Jerusalem and also in Washington, key decision-makers should finally realize that the Jihadist fighter sees himself or herself as a religious sacrifice. Here, each individual foe, whether Sunni or Shiite, aims to escape from profane time. By willfully abandoning the profane clock time that imprison ordinary mortals, the Jihadist slaughters “heathen” and “infidel” in an ecstatically grateful exchange for “immortality.”

In essence, the Jihadist terrorist kills and dies in order to end the sovereignty of unbelievers. When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists raped, tortured, and murdered Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, their aim was lascivious and primal; it was not “Palestine.”

The barbarisms of October 7 were not merely sanctioned by several Palestinian authorities. They were undertaken in alleged fulfillment of a divine commandment: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.” (Koran 8:60) Also: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…” (Koran 9:5)

Going forward on all security fronts, Israeli strategists should also draw systematically on modern lessons of asymmetric warfare. In The Quranic Concept of War (1979), Pakistani Brigadier General S. K. Malik observes: “Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved.”

Nonetheless, when understood in terms of the hazards of Palestinian statehood, the most genuinely overriding threat of jihadi terror would stem from force-multiplying interactions with Iranian nuclearization. It follows that Israeli strategic planners should always approach these threats as synergistic.

Prof. Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and scholarly articles dealing with international law, nuclear strategy, nuclear war, and terrorism. In Israel, Prof. Beres was Chair of Project Daniel (PM Sharon). His 12th and latest book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed., 2018). 

The post Israel and the Middle East: Could There Be a Regional Nuclear War? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.