The Israeli right is fond of arguing that Iran and its proxies individually and collectively represent an existential threat to their country. Are they correct?
Hamas is just a terrorist group. It doesn’t have the manpower, the resources, or the expertise to destroy Israel. It accomplished about all it was capable of last month, and is currently paying the price for it. It is in no way an existential threat.
Hezbollah has professional soldiers and much better weapons than Hamas. It has its hands full operating a state within a state in Lebanon, however. It doesn’t have much of an offensive capability, and it doesn’t have an answer for Iron Dome. It will continue to represent a threat to Israel for the foreseeable future, as the cost of eliminating it through offensive action would be unacceptably high, but it is not an existential threat.
An Iran armed with nukes would appear to jeopardize Israel’s very existence. Thanks to the decision by Trump, spurred on by Netanyahu, to withdraw from the nuclear deal, the Iranians are closer to getting the bomb than ever before. Given that Israel is certainly covered under America’s nuclear umbrella, and probably has the ability to deliver a deadly second strike even after a reasonably successful first strike, for Iran to attack the Jewish state would be an act of suicide. The existential threat argument, therefore, doesn’t even apply to Iran.
But would Putin say that Iran is protected by Russia’s nuclear umbrella, and if he did, would his statement be credible? That would never have occurred prior to 2022, but it is a reasonable possibility now. It would put the ability of America and Israel to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike in question. Let’s hope we never find out.