The attempt to downplay the Iranian threat as mere political posturing or empty rhetoric is more than an analytical error; it is a dangerous strategic delusion
Reality in the Middle East proves that Tehran is not a state actor seeking a simple “balance of power,” but, rather, a messianic regime that has, for decades, invested its national resources in a systematic project of destruction. The pursuit of a nuclear weapon is intended to provide a “nuclear umbrella” for its regional aggression, potentially enabling the annihilation of Israel in a single stroke.
American journalist Peter Beinart is willfully blind toward all this. His decision to protect a terror regime that aims to destroy the only Jewish state raises concern about his view of its mere existence.
The argument that the Iranian threat was “invented” in the 1990s due to a lack of other regional enemies ignores the profound internal evolution of the Islamic Republic since the 1979 Revolution. Since then, the “obliteration of the Zionist entity” has evolved from a religious abstraction into a concrete military blueprint. Over 40 years, Iran has constructed a “ring of fire” around Israel’s borders – a sophisticated proxy network of terror armies designed to impose a permanent siege and a multifront war of attrition.
The primary architect of this project was the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the body responsible for establishing, arming, and training these pro-Iranian militias. Under its command, Iran exported its combat operations far beyond its own borders to ensure the battlefield remains close to Jerusalem and far from Tehran.
The Quds Force does not merely supply weapons; it coordinates a joint operations room of all branches – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and militias in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen – with the goal of exhausting Israel through a perpetual conflict that is ultimately intended to be decisive.
While skeptics dismiss the declarations of Iran’s leaders as mere demagoguery for domestic consumption, history teaches that ideological adversaries mean exactly what they say.
The former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, repeatedly defined Israel as a “cancerous tumor that must be removed.” A physical manifestation of this intent is the “Israel Countdown Clock” installed in Tehran’s Palestine Square in 2017. The clock counts down to the year 2040 – the date by which Khamenei predicted Israel will cease to exist.
This is a strategic objective that dictates the regime’s resource allocation, even at the cost of crippling sanctions and the suffering of its own people.
The Iranian threat is uniquely dangerous due to the messianic foundation at its core. Within the radical Twelver Shia theology that guides the state, the destruction of Israel is viewed as a necessary religious precursor to the return of the Mahdi (the Shia messiah).
Altered concept of 'rationality'
This ideology fundamentally alters the concept of “rationality.” A regime that believes it is executing a divine plan for cosmic redemption may be willing to sacrifice large segments of its population and absorb immense damage to achieve its messianic goal.
Unlike the Cold War, this is not a balance of terror between two life-affirming superpowers; it is an encounter with a regime whose leaders may view an apocalyptic confrontation as a desirable end.
In this strategic framework, the nuclear project is more than just a deterrent; it is a shield that would allow Iran and its proxies to escalate conventional aggression with impunity. Protected by a nuclear umbrella, the Quds Force could activate the ring of fire with far greater intensity, knowing that Israel would hesitate to respond in a way that could escalate to a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.
Iranian leaders have reiterated that Israel is a “one-bomb state”; once they possess that bomb, the risk of its calculated use to destroy Israel becomes a concrete reality.
History warns us that in the face of an emerging existential threat, there is often a deep human tendency to cling to the familiar and to Western notions of rationality, downplaying the enemy’s explicit declarations.
On the eve of the Holocaust, many Jews in Europe – particularly in the West – suffered from what might be called a “blindness of hope.” They believed that Nazism was a passing phase, or that the high culture of the German people would ultimately restrain Hitler’s barbarism. The belief that “it can’t happen here” or that we are witnessing mere “rhetoric for political purposes” prevented many from identifying the machinery of destruction being built before their eyes.
Failure to recognize genocidal intent
One of the most painful examples of this failure to recognize genocidal intent was among German Jewry in the 1930s. Despite the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 and increasing persecution, certain Jewish organizations in Germany, such as the Centralverein, believed for a long time that the German Rechtsstaat (state of law) would ultimately protect them. They viewed themselves as “Germans of the Mosaic faith” and could not conceive that the state they had served loyally would turn toward their physical liquidation.
Even as Hitler explicitly declared his intentions in Mein Kampf, segments of the elite interpreted it as political demagoguery rather than a military blueprint – a misconception that was finally and tragically shattered on Kristallnacht.
Even before October 7, 2023, the entire Israeli leadership failed to listen to Yahya Sinwar, who openly declared his intentions, preferring instead to view him as a rational actor.
The bitter lesson learned from the 1930s, and again from October 7, is that the conception of “the enemy is deterred and seeks stability” is a recipe for disaster.
When a messianic regime builds a clock that counts down your days, arms armies at your borders, and strives for doomsday weapons, the perception that this is an “inflated” threat is a gamble on millions of lives. Reality demands a recognition of the threat as it is, and a determined stance against the head of the octopus in Tehran.
The writer is the director-general of the Jewish People Policy Institute and a law lecturer at the Peres Academic Center.