This can be made permanent by strengthening a triad (air, land, sea) of nuclear delivery systems and targeting the capitols of every enemy state. This is called "mutual assured destruction".
Two problems here.
Firstly, the politest term for allowing Israel to have (and improve) nuclear weapons while denying them to others - those much-feared WMDS's, remember? - is "gross hypocrisy". Me, I'd term it "lunatic aggressive warmongering" as well.
Why not allow Israel to shelter under the umbrella of larger, stable nuclear powers... this worked for Western Europe, after all.
Secondly, it's only "mutually assured" if both sides have the deterrent. If only one does, be sure all its potential targets will take all steps to get their own - they've got nothing at all to lose. cf India/Pakistan.
I take it that you don't want Iran to have nukes? or (worse, IMO) Egypt or the Saudis? Well, if not, it may not be wise to allow such a vocal, expansionist and overtly aggressive hostile US proxy to have them...
<edit> especially when among its apparent aims - the declared aims of a growing and increasingly influential faction - is territorial enlargement. This is not going to convince anyone it's a nation wanting peace. |
