Iran and Israel: A Reckless Power Play

Sarah Katz

Iran and Israel: A Reckless Power Play


















In recent years, the State of Israel has served as the source of immense international controversy. Circumstances surrounding both its right to exist and the very feasibility of its security in the Middle East grow increasingly questionable as more world powers turn a blind eye to the political grievances of Israeli leaders.
However, what exactly has Israel's parliament as well as many of its citizens so frightened? Overwhelmed on all sides by a number of Arab countries as they have been for over sixty years, surely Israelis have learned to cope with the constant need for watchfulness. Indeed, the decades long 'Arab threat' to the Jewish State may soon give way to the imminent might of a potentially far more dangerous aggressor – Iran.
Different from the widely renowned and more asymmetrical Israeli-Palestinian martial tension, Iran is working toward enhancing its nuclear facilities, as opposed to suicide bombing and others forms of smaller scale terrorism observed in Arab hostilities toward Israel. In this way, Iran and Israel are growing more similar in military capacity as well as their vision for dealing with the simmering tension in their region.
In fact, eager to dissuade the Iranians from deploying any nuclear capability against their State, certain Israeli officials—most notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--have adopted a hard-lined approach to try and deter the Islamic Republic by way of coercive diplomacy, in hopes that Iranian nuclear power for any intended purpose will never even become a reality. However, has this strategy been effective or ineffective? If recent events are anything to go by, Israeli intimidation tactics have created more of a spiral escalation into provocation of the Iranian Regime. Such enticement stems primarily from intermittent Israeli use of outright coercion despite the country's public claims to employ only peaceful deterrence.

A Rocky Beginning
Following the tumultuous history of Jewish persecution at the hands of first the Nazis and then the Arab states following Israel's establishment, the Israeli government has adopted a hawkish outlook with an emphasis on preemption.
Indeed, a glance at history provides insight as to the multifaceted purpose of the establishment of a Jewish State. Although it makes some references to the biblical Jewish claim to Eretz-Israel - or the sacred homeland of the Jews – the Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel also provides concise reasoning behind the United Nations' acceptance of the re-installment of a Jewish State in the Middle East. In fact, this official article utilizes the Jewish love for their ancient homeland to explain the continuous attempts by Jews in Diaspora to return to this cherished region. From those escaping persecution and annihilation in Europe during World War II to those just emigrating from surrounding Islamic nations, these Jews have been on the path home for generations. However, the widespread horrors witnessed during the Holocaust definitively offered the necessary push for the international community to legitimize a Jewish State recognized under contemporary global standards.
As might be expected, following such a volatile experience at the hands of non-Jews, caution and self-preservation have been embedded in Israel's cultural ethos since the state's establishment in 1948. However, the Israeli government also has more contemporary reasons to feel uneasy. Now with three different nuclear reactor sites - Arak, Fordow and the main center, Natanz – Iran increases its nuclear capacity by the year. Particularly in light of this growing capacity follows a rising insecurity among Israel's leaders who view the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran as unpredictable in its grievances toward the West and particularly toward Israel, whom the Iranian religious Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei blames for atrocities committed against Palestinians as well as general infiltration of Judeo-Christian culture into what he views as Islamic territory. Now that Iran has embarked on the path to achieving nuclear capability, Israeli officials and primarily Prime Minister Netanyahu fear that this emerging Middle Eastern entity may intend to use its nuclear abilities for more than just energy.
Moreover, these developing nuclear plants also have many Western powers on edge. Beginning mainly in 2013, the International Atomic Energy Agency has systematically inspected all three sites, negotiating with Iranian authorities until the country's officials agreed to convert Arak and Fordow to research facilities to be used solely for technology and research purposes. Thus we see here that even the United States and many European powers have considered Iran's nuclear power as a matter for assessment. In this case, a nation like Israel whose very existence stems primarily from the necessity for a safe haven from persecution would logically have integrated a sense of hypervigilance into its strategic outlook, particularly regarding its position surrounded by ideologically opposing Muslim countries.

What does the Literature Tell us?
Provided the tendency of Israel to continuously threaten aggressive action if Iran fails to cease development of its nuclear program, this particular Israeli policy counts as coercive diplomacy. For all intended purposes here, coercive diplomacy involves one nation promising to attack another nation if the latter fails to comply with certain instructions by an established deadline (ultimatum). In the case of Iran and Israel, Israel has called for the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear facilities. However, coercive diplomacy only works if the initiating policymaker has a clear idea of what to demand of the adversary – whereas Israel requests an end to Iranian nuclear capability, Netanyahu fails to clearly identify a specific ultimatum at which point Israeli forces would attack.
Moreover and perhaps most importantly, coercive diplomacy only truly succeeds if the initiator also refrains from any coercion. Instead, the nation desiring the other side to abandon an activity should offer a positive incentive – or carrot – to further ensure compliance. As we will see, Israel has failed to abide by the regulation to avoid hostility as well as provide any incentives.

A Power Play in the Middle East
Israelis are hardly alone in their skepticism. In the situation of Iran and Israel, leaders on both sides seem to be contemplating war simply to realize a final conclusion to their longstanding power play. After all, following hostility that began with the State of Israel's birth in 1948, Iran stands by its claim of the Jewish nation as illegitimate. It almost seems as though battling it out might finally yield the victor the region has been waiting to behold. Even so, in spite of Netanyahu's promises to adopt a more forceful stance, Israel continues to utilize coercive diplomacy to try and convince the Islamic Republic that progression of their nuclear facility will prove dangerous at all costs. Hereby, although international reports have not yet disclosed any solidly concerning levels of progress at Natanz, Israel's goal remains to cease all Iranian nuclear development of any sort, under the assurance that failure to comply will result in a non-peaceful maneuver by Israel. Consistent with a coercive diplomatic approach, Israeli parliament seems to care less and less about international reassurance, relentless in their ambition to ensure that Iran never obtains any nuclear capabilities.
In the meantime – despite a lack of official military offense from the Israeli side thus far – we see evidence of the Spiral Model of deterrence, wherein political scientist Robert Jervis warns against threatening a state into hostile behavior and political researcher Russell Leng states that even preventative threats tend to only result in increased hostility, particularly when Israel occasionally takes unilateral actions to destroy all trace of Iranian nuclear materials without also offering a reward as incentive for good behavior. In this way, coercion begets more coercion and innocent lives may be lost, should war actually occur. If anything, this volatile pattern of threats between Iran and Israel exhibits just how unsuccessful such a tactic has become in terms of dissuasion, both in terms of Iran's nuclear development as well as Israel's stated adherence to strictly non-violent coercive diplomacy. Particularly with the possible entrance of nuclear weapons on the scene, the accumulated tension between these two Middle Eastern powers could prove especially fatal.
Here we are confronted with the question of whether we can truly expect any nation that feels threatened to behave in a rational manner. Of course, as both Iran and Israel's motives stem primarily from pure fear and distrust of the perceived threat posed by the other, perhaps neither side can be expected to act rationally. Herein lies the issue of two entities threatening each other's ideals and security for so long a time that such intimidation can even lead to stress-induced misbehavior, in which one side attacks the other and is either defeated by its target or successfully destroys its target only to be eradicated by its target's allies. In this sense, although Israel currently utilizes a coercive diplomatic strategy with regard to Iranian nuclear evolution, danger can also emerge once Iran grows tired of ongoing Israeli threats, particularly provided the lack of positive incentives – or carrots-- from Israel. Thereby, without serious alteration in unilateral action by Israel and a replacement with promise of reward, any attempts at coercive diplomacy will likely continue to prove unsuccessful.
Once again, we encounter the highly psychological aspect of the Iran-Israel power play. Iran essentially views Israel as Western (Zionist) occupiers – a leftover symbol of European colonialism, due to the Jewish State's legitimization by Great Britain – and a regional watchdog for the United States. Meanwhile, Israel feels threatened by this emerging enemy and has turned to steadfast coercive diplomacy as a primary method of deterrence in order to convince Iran of Israeli power and the consequences of an Iranian offensive against Israel – the signs of impending offense here merely being the existence of several Iranian nuclear sites.
Yet the power struggle runs deeper than quips in mass media. Since 2007, five top Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated and although Israel has never publically claimed responsibility for the attacks, Israeli parliament's adversity toward Iran's nuclear program remains more than enough evidence for many. Such implications prove especially risky once lives are actually taken. In light of the already teetering rationality in the case of Iran and Israel, the Israeli assassination of Iranian individuals not even officially guilty of any crime could very well serve as the breaking point for Iran – the final spiral into outright military conflict. The likelihood of this spiral epitomizes the precise reason why Israeli efforts at deterrence have failed thus far – Israel utilizes measures highly disproportionate for a crime that has not even been solidly revealed as existent. Although they claim a more coercive diplomatic approach, their dissuasive attempts have boiled down to destroying lives over a sense of anxiety and such measures are unacceptable for Iran, particularly given the latter's reiterated promises to only use their nuclear developments for civilian purposes.
Proceeding beyond the tactic of assassination, we next examine cyber attack as a method of Israeli deterrence. In 2010, a joint American-Israeli developed computer virus called Stuxnet was designed for an array of purposes, one of the main intentions being the cessation of developmental progress on Iran's main nuclear reactor facility at Natanz. Successful in eradicating over one-fifth of online data for Natanz, this cyber assault serves as another indication that Israel desires more coercion than coercive diplomacy – that Israeli authorities would rather take matters into their own hands to ensure that Iranian nuclear power never sees the light than to peacefully step down and trust in the Regime's assurances that their plants are only being developed for research purposes.
Here once again arises the issue of rationality. If Iran never viewed Israel as a legitimate state in the first place, why would they heed anything promised by the Israeli elite? Especially provided the suspicion that these Iranian scientists were murdered by Israel as well as the definitive Israeli cyber attack on Natanz, will Iran choose to initiate war as a next measure to take down the Israeli threat? Even if Netanyahu promises to destroy Iran only if their nuclear facility develops beyond a certain point or that he will not attack before that point, why would the Islamic Republic take to heart anything that he claims? If anything, such threats toward Iran risk provoking similar coercive action from the Iranian side - a situation that can only lead to further promise of destruction for both parties.

The Purpose of Preemption
Now, what exactly does Israel hope to gain with its attempts to intimidate Iran away from obtaining a nuclear weapon or any nuclear capabilities? The obvious answer would be Israeli security, which begs the question of how effective their intimidation has been thus far. After all, in his eyes, Netanyahu has only succeeded once the Islamic Republic has given up the very development of a nuclear facility. At this rate, however, Israel's deterrence tactics might further entice its adversary to start the very war that both parties claim to oppose.
In fact, this intimidation can even be observed on the level of social media as well as mass media. Beginning with the Supreme Leader, when questioned regarding his opinion of Israel, Ayatollah Khamenei responded with a desire that the Zionist (Israeli) Regime be eliminated, a statement which rapidly circulated via his online Twitter platform. His vision follows:

Khamenei has proposed a public referendum to install a new government that will decide, "whether the non-Palestinian emigrants [Jewish immigrants] who have immigrated to this country over the past years can continue living in Palestine or should return to their home countries."
Khamenei has also recommended that until such a plan can be implemented and a fair referendum conducted, Israel should receive a, "powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance."

Although Khamenei has not suggested an outright slaughter or forced relocation of the Jews living on what he views as Palestinian Arab land, Netanyahu clearly feels that the Islamic Republic desires the destruction of the Israeli leadership as well as its society and overall Jewish presence in the region, and has called upon U.S. President Barack Obama to enhance American opposition to Iranian nuclear development.
With their aggressive comments on social media and their demands that more exhaustive measures be taken to prevent a nuclear Iran, leaders Ayatollah Khamenei and Benjamin Netanyahu have respectively taken to threatening one another in a back-and-forth game of political ping-pong. However, governments must take care not to inadvertently cause a war by pushing too far their attempts at coercive diplomacy.
For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu has continuously stated in recent years his intention to act in response to Iran's allegedly developing nuclear facility at Natanz. Beginning in 2012, we have seen Netanyahu publically call for a halting of Iran's nuclear program before it crosses a certain 'red line'. However, he fails to specify exactly how this ultimatum should be defined. By and large, the Prime Minister's message simply conveys his willingness to carry out a preemptive strike on Natanz, if necessary.
Similarly, in the year 2013, Netanyahu continued his promise to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, should diplomatic pressures fail. The fact that the Prime Minister threatens an offensive maneuver when the international community has simply imposed economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic seems a trifle exaggerated, particularly in the absence of a specific red line desired by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear capability.
Once again in 2014, Netanyahu furthered his insistence that economic sanctions have not successfully dissuaded Iran's nuclear aspirations and that the international community should more closely examine developments made by the Islamic Republic in this area, comparing the situation to North Korea, a country whose nuclear capabilities went undetected by the West for far too long. Notwithstanding, Netanyahu still falls short of providing us a value for his red line or how exactly Israeli intelligence plans to determine whether such a line has been crossed.
Indeed, this year's latest remarks by the Israeli Prime Minister concern the recent nuclear arms deal forged between President Obama, the European Union and the Islamic Republic. Although now more aware of the skepticism with which the international community – including his long-time ally, the United States – holds his recent statements and hard-lined outlook regarding Iran, Netanyahu upholds his request that the U.S. avoid a deal with Iran altogether, claiming that Israel's safety depends upon it. As always, Obama seems to view the Prime Minister's plea as old hat and warmongering.
Moreover, Netanyahu's failure to bring forth a solid reason to suspect that Iran's nuclear capability represents a military danger despite the country's claims seem to have convinced the international community even further that now the politician is simply grasping at straws without presenting any real evidence.
If anything, this aggressive attitude and resistance to a deal often only succeeds in angering the other party, pushing them to the edge until open war breaks out. In this case and at this level of tension, it seems likely that either Iran or Israel might strike first.
After all, when one state challenges the commitment of another state to its stance solely to get the other state to back off, such a challenge only counts as successful if it does not result in war. So is the projected image of Israel as regional military superpower even wisely deployed in this instance? Indeed, perhaps Netanyahu's attempts at coercive diplomacy are only increasing the risk of both alienating the international community as well as provoking the Islamic Republic.

Is Either Side Rational?
On the one hand, Israeli leadership at large and much of Israeli society consider this image of a 'willingness to go all the way' to have served them well following their victory over surrounding Arab countries in the war over the Jewish State's initial establishment. However, despite the effectiveness of this intimidation tactic in deterring further attacks by surrounding Arab states, Iran constitutes another level of threat and one that might more closely mirror the prowess of Israel.
So, has this dizzying power struggle even worked at all so far? Again, we return to the importance of considering the whole picture – including various perspectives from amongst the international community – before deciding whether to take preemptive action. Unfortunately, Netanyahu's aggressive rhetoric has only managed to further inflame the tension with Iran. In fact, back when the Islamic Republic still viewed Israel and the U.S. as largely similar in stance regarding Natanz, former Iranian President Ahmadinejad spoke of Western opposition to Iranian nuclear progress as a 'conspiracy' led by the United States and Israel, denying any intention to use nuclear power for military purposes. Despite Iran's general assurance that its nuclear development is peaceful, the Islamic Republic has vowed to retaliate against any Israeli attack. Such a promise possibly implies an alternative use for the country's nuclear capabilities – and, regardless of the type of arms used, clearly demonstrates how Iran clearly grows tired of Israel's threats.
In any case, despite a lack of military force, the volatile response of the Islamic Republic toward hostile remarks by Israel remains apparent. We witness this aggression in a more recent statement by Ayatollah Khamenei in the year 2013, threatening to 'raze Israeli cities to the ground', should Israel choose to attack Iranian territory. Especially provided this latest utterance, Iran seems as game for potential war as Israel, which cues the question – who will make the first move?
Assessing the Threat
Perhaps more importantly, what does the rest of the world have to say about this situation? In 2012, the United States Arms Control Association released the latest update on the Iranian nuclear project:
"We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
"Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons, making the central issue its political will to do so. These [technical] advancements contribute to our judgment that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon, if it so chooses."

Here we observe, despite the calmer regard with which the United States and other Western powers generally hold Iran, that other entities besides Israel have also acknowledged the potential capacity of the Natanz nuclear facility. In general, the stated lack of knowledge regarding timeline of Iran's actual attainment of a nuclear weapon or even their will to have such a weapon leaves much to ponder.
So what is Netanyahu's great concern? As previously explored, the Israeli Prime Minister fears for the security of his country as well as the related factor of how strong Israel appears in the eyes of its adversaries.
Yet, is Netanyahu digging himself into a hole by refusing to abandon his intimidating stance? Is it still coercive diplomacy at this point or simply a reckless attempt at a power display that only places his country at greater risk? After all, his most recent speech to U.S. Congress concerning a nuclear deal with Iran and the ensuing responses not only from Iran and the Arab World but from Europe as well all seem to frame him as a warmonger who fails to raise any fresh points.
Still, Netanyahu's aggressive stance truly originates from the dire necessity to protect his nation from future hostility. His concern particularly emerges in the part of his speech where he refers to Israel as his homeland and "the one and only Jewish State", thereby referring to the nation as the only safe (or safest) haven for Jews. However, Obama has waved off this concern as emotional appeal and 'nothing new'. Instead, the reactions we can see are an impact on the rising aggression toward Israel of the Lebanon-based Islamist group Hezbollah as it collaborates with Iran.
But what triggers this longstanding opposition between Iran and Israel specifically? Frequently, the psychological tendency to feel threatened by those you have long considered the enemy can outweigh the hard facts of a current situation. Iran's alliance with its fellow Muslims in Palestine has formed a bridge between the two players in this confrontation with Israel. Such opposition can also keep players from realizing the risks of going to war and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of threats up to the present. In this case, Iran and Israel are so convinced of the other's intent to destroy that both sides are essentially prepared to strike down what they view as the opponent.
Moreover, however, arises the issue of coercion. Although Israel has promised not to exert violence toward Iran at the latter's current stage of nuclear development, many Iranians believe that Israeli intelligence are responsible for murdering several of its people and the Stuxnet cyber attack provides solid evidence of Israeli hostility when it was assured that none would yet take place. Hereby, Iran's wrath over the Israel-Palestine conflict and the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East increases in the face of Israel taking actual coercive measures to destroy Iranian nuclear capacity. Such Israeli interference in the affairs and, quite possibly, the lives of Iranians undoubtedly dominates the failure of Israel's professed attempt at coercive diplomacy – mainly due to its very lack of diplomacy.
Here, we return to the Spiral Model defined by Jervis and Leng. According to these experts in international political theory, attempted deterrence via threats regarding the consequences of taking action are often more likely to encourage than to prevent hostile action from the adversary. In this way, instead of offering positive incentives for Iran abiding by international standards thus far in terms of their nuclear progression, Israel continues to issue threats and has even directly provoked Iran with their participation in the development of the Stuxnet virus and attacks on Iranian scientists. Such recklessness has indeed resulted in increased tension between the two nations, as Iran has come to expect Israel to behave aggressively regardless of the stages of Iranian nuclear development. At this rate, the only way to distill the current situation would be for Israel to cease its public intimidation and, most importantly, to show Iran that while the latter obeys the rules of international nuclear law, Israel will keep its promise not to act out with any hostility.
In addition to refraining from violence, Israel should consider positive incentives – or a carrot-and-stick method – defined as the most conducive approach to successful coercive diplomacy. If Iran feels like it has something to gain by obeying Israel's wishes, the Islamic Republic will be more likely to comply.

The Path to Peace
As we breach the topic of brokering peace, what next steps can be taken? As matters now stand, Israel fears how certain members of the Islamic circle, such as the controversial Islamist Hezbollah, might conspire against them. What can Israel do to try and prevent such dangerous collaboration? Particularly in terms of preventing a nuclear or terrorist attack of some other means upon its people, the Israeli government must consider the virtue in ceasing its threats. After all, Iran will certainly have no legitimate reason to attack Israel if the latter has halted intimidation tactics. At its core, the unique entity of Israel has been involved in a soft power conflict with its Islamic neighbors for decades – a continuous war of public relations. While the Muslim nations –Iran included -- maintain the role of militarily inferior victims of Western oppression, Israel remains viewed by the international public as the Western-backed bully of the Middle East.
Sadly, little progress can likely be made in terms of Israel's reputation among its neighbors. However, in order to safeguard its alliance with the powerful United States, Israel would do well to play the game of PR and try assuming the role of peaceful bystander. As opposed to Palestinian terrorism or similar Arab threats closer to home, Israel can fortunately afford to take a breath regarding the danger posed by Iran, at least until Israeli or American intelligence prove otherwise.
As the progress of Iranian nuclear capability has not yet been proven to match anywhere near the level of Western states, Netanyahu's attempts at deterrence have only proceeded to further inflame his relationship with Iran, the Arab World and even with the West. Such is a classic example of the psychology of response to perceived threat with stated threat in response to what Netanyahu views as imminent danger. However, the Israeli Prime Minister's obsession with intimidation and preemption – particularly when human lives are involved - might just constitute more risk than anything that Iran alone could muster at this point in time. He is angering both the Islamic and Western worlds and this play for power has begun to spiral out of control.

Israel: Policy Recommendation

Simply stated, Israel should back off and wait until a widely recognized international authority such as the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals solid evidence regarding the successful establishment of a nuclear weapon in Iran. Only then will the contemporary critics of Israeli leaders take the country's warnings seriously. At this point in time, any further offensive strikes would prove fatal for the tiny nation of Israel, due to both its geographical proximity to Iran as well as its increasingly fragile relationship with its singular ally, the United States. After all, the last situation Israel needs would be to sit alone to face the wrath of Iran and its Arab allies while President Obama turns the cold shoulder.
In the meantime, Israel should continue its own clandestine investigations into Iran's nuclear facility, always taking care not to compromise any human life. Most importantly, Israeli parliament should also use positive incentives – such as an international decree that Israel shall not harm Iranian citizens or property – to ensure compliance from Iran. However, provided the explored Iranian distrust of Israel and perception of the latter as illegitimate, Israeli promises to refrain from violence can be solidified with economic incentives, such as relaxed trade barriers with Iran. By and large, however, the Israeli government should rely primarily upon the data provided by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations regarding Iran's nuclear abilities, so as not to appear biased to the greater international community with any findings that appear exclusive to Israel's intelligence. Finally, Israel must adhere to its stated intent of coercive diplomacy and refrain from any hands-on interference with Iranian people or their assets. Failure to do so will only guarantee further failure of what Israeli officials have deemed peaceful deterrence.
As always, the necessity to comply with global standards and play into the game of public relations remains essential and while Israel should certainly maintain its peaceful vigilance over Iran's nuclear development, they should make certain to avoid both reckless outbursts as well as routine threats. In this way, if Iran's nuclear progress and intent of use is ever discovered to contradict the claims of the Islamic Republic, no actor can place blame on Israel as an instigator. If anything, such a situation would hold a pacifistic Israel as the wise presence who 'knew it all along'.

Israel. Provisional Council of State. Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel. By David Ben-Gurion. Tel Aviv: State of Israel, 1948. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. State of Israel, 14 May 1948. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
Ross, Philip. "Iran Nuclear Program: What To Know About Fordow, Arak Reactor Facilities And Proposed Changes Under Deal." International Business Times. IBT Media Inc., 02 Apr. 2015. Web. 08 May 2015.
Art, Robert J., and Patrick M. Cronin. "Introduction." The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. 6-9. Print.
Art, Robert J., and Patrick M. Cronin. "Coercive Diplomacy Work: What Do We Know?" The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. 361-363. Print.
Art, Robert J., and Patrick M. Cronin. The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. Print.
Leng, Russell J. Escalation: Competing Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. Vol. 6. N.p.: Blackwell, 2004. 51-62. Print.
Jervis, Robert, Richard Ned. Lebow, and Janice Gross. Stein. "Perceiving and Coping with Threat." Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1985. 2-13. Print.
Art, Robert J., and Patrick M. Cronin. "Coercive Diplomacy is Difficult." The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. 401-408. Print.
France-Presse, Agence. "Iran Welcomes 'anti-Zionist' Palestinian Reconciliation." GlobalPost. GlobalPost, 26 Apr. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
"Obama Pushes Israel to Stop Assassinations of Iran Nuclear Scientists Report." RT News. RussiaTimes, 2 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 May 2015.
Kelley, Michael B. "The Stuxnet Attack On Iran's Nuclear Plant Was 'Far More Dangerous' Than Previously Thought." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 May 2015.
Lebow, Richard Ned. "Brinkmanship." Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981. 56-92. Print.
Khan, Maria. "Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Tweets Plan to Eliminate Israel." International Business Times. IBTimes Co., Ltd., 09 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
"Obama Threatens Netanyahu with US Veto." Middle East Monitor. The Middle East Monitor, 3 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Leng, Russell J. Escalation: Competing Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. Vol. 6. N.p.: Blackwell, 2004. 51-62. Print.
Spetalnick, Matt, and Dan Williams. "Iran on Brink of Nuclear Bomb in 6-7 Months: Netanyahu." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
The Associated Press. "Netanyahu: Iranian Nuclear Program Unaffected by World Pressure." Haaretz.com. Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd., 23 May 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Zvulun, Ronen. "Netanyahu, Speaking to U.S. Jewish Group, Warns of Iran's Nuclear Threat." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 11 Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Baker, Peter. "In Congress, Netanyahu Faults 'Bad Deal' on Iran Nuclear Program." The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Lebow, Richard Ned. "Brinkmanship." Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981. 56-92. Print.
Wenger, Andreas, and Alex S. Wilner. Deterring Terrorism: Theory and Practice. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2012. 28. Print.
"UN: Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Rejects Nuclear 'threat'" BBC News. BBC, 26 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Finocchiaro, Peter. "Iran Responds To Netanyahu U.N. Speech: We Will Retaliate Against Attack." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
"Iran Threatens to "raze" Israeli Cities in Nuclear Standoff." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Kimball, Daryl G. "U.S. Intelligence Assessment of Iran's Nuclear Program: Essentials Remain the Same." Arms Control Now. Arms Control Association, 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Collins, Stephen. "Kerry Warns Netanyahu Ahead of Congress Speech - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Collins, Stephen. "Kerry Warns Netanyahu Ahead of Congress Speech - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Mekelberg, Yossi. "Israel, Iran and Hezbollah: A Dangerous Triangle." Al Arabiya News. Al Arabiya, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.
Leng, Russell J. Escalation: Competing Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. Vol. 6. N.p.: Blackwell, 2004. 51-62. Print.
Art, Robert J., and Patrick M. Cronin. "Coercive Diplomacy is Difficult." The United States and Coercive Diplomacy. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 2003. 401-408. Print.

Blanford, Nicholas. "Israel on Edge as Hezbollah, Iran Move on Golan Heights " Al Jazeera America." Israel on Edge as Hezbollah, Iran Move on Golan. Al Jazeera America, LLC, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2015.


21