I don't know why it staggered me to read the report in the London Sunday Times. I've not only expected it, I've discussed it previously on numerous occasions.

The story in last Sunday's edition of the Times revealed that Israel plans to use tactical nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program. I believe it's the only logical choice available to Israel, but reading the report rocked me back on my heels anyway.

Like when you hear of someone dying whom you already knew had cancer – it isn't surprising, but that doesn't soften the blow. The government of Israel immediately denied the report, but official denials are to be expected, so they're basically meaningless.

The most significant fact is the story found its way to the front page of the London Sunday Times and NOT the Jerusalem Post, Washington Post or New York Times. Why is that significant? The London Sunday Times is – by and large – untainted by U.S. Middle East politics.

(Column continues below)

And it's certainly no friend of Israel. It is, therefore, widely respected throughout the Arab Middle East. That makes it the perfect place for Israel to "plant" the story. Now, the obvious question is: Why would Israel plant such a story? I think there are a couple of reasons.

The first and most important is to measure and soften-up public opinion to whatever degree possible in advance of such a strike. Leaking the plan in advance will help Israel gauge the level of potential global anger if it does, indeed, launch a tactical nuclear strike.

They can also judge whether the world might actually be relieved if someone takes out Iran's nukes before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launches them on Israel and starts a regional nuclear holocaust. It's increasingly the global consensus that this is exactly what will happen if Iran develops a nuclear capability.

It's especially true in Washington and Brussels. Everyone knows that some nation or coalition must destroy or cripple Iran's nuclear facilities – but no one wants to do it. There is, however, one disturbing fact that ought to trouble the cowardly Europeans. London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels are just as much in range of Iran's nuclear missiles as Tel Aviv. And Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic vision includes subjecting all infidels to Allah.

The current recommendations, ranging from threats to bribes to endless negotiations, are like castles in the air. They're just wishful thinking with no foundation beneath them. Ahmadinejad's objective is to begin an apocalyptic nuclear war that brings the Muslim messiah called the Mahdi back to earth.

One of the reasons suicide bombers are so effective is because their goal is to die. They needn't trouble themselves with escape routes or back-up plans. They aren't concerned with the risks.

How does one threaten someone whose goal is martyrdom for Allah? What kind of bribe would entice a suicide bomber? He believes that Paradise awaits him, with all his wildest fantasies to be fulfilled.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes it's his divine mission to begin the Apocalypse and bring about the return of the Islamic messiah. He believes that is the will of Allah. How do you negotiate with Allah?

The recent unanimous Security Council vote imposing sanctions on Iran suggests that even the Russians and the Chinese are starting to get a bit nervous about Ahmadinejad's religiously driven objectives. They demanded a watered-down version, but they could have vetoed it completely.

Why didn't they? Because the version that made it out of the Security Council still gives Russia and China the opportunity to continue their lucrative nuclear monopoly with Iran. It's a calculated risk. As long as Iran's nuclear program continues, so do their profits. If Israel destroys Iran's program, they still keep their profits. And now there's the possibility of future profits repairing the damage.

But neither the Russians nor the Chinese are stupid. They are useful infidels, but infidels nonetheless. They know the sword of Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic jihad would turn against them, too.

In a worst-case scenario, Russia and China left themselves the option of ducking for diplomatic cover behind their Security Council vote if world opinion turns against them.

So Israel is carefully observing global reaction to its carefully planted "leak." The second reason for Israel to "leak" the report is to warn the Arab world without officially abandoning its policy of nuclear ambiguity. Israel historically refuses to confirm or deny it possesses nuclear weapons. Since it refuses to confirm they exist, Israel doesn't have to reveal the size of its arsenal.

For the Arabs, that's always made attacking Israel a gamble. For all they know, Israel could be bluffing. Or Israel could possess a large enough nuclear arsenal to reduce the Middle East to a sea of glass. But a nuclear Iran makes Israel's nuclear ambiguity a liability, rather than an asset.

Leaking the story to the London Sunday Times sends a clear message to Tehran that Israel not only has nukes, but will use them if it feels its survival is at stake. And Ahmadinejad has made it clear that Israel's survival is at stake.

What the Iranian president has failed to calculate is that Israel would readily use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's otherwise invulnerable nuclear facilities. And the plot thickens.

---

Related special offer:

"Showdown with Nuclear Iran"