Ehud Barak admitted that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose no threat to Israel, as the Iranians were not crazy enough to use use the weapon. That's about as far as most articles went on the Barak press conference, but Laura Rozen has more (my emphasis in red):
"Asked by a Middle Eastern correspondent, why Israel couldn’t live with a nuclear Iran, Barak said Israel welcomed U.S. leadership in seeking international sanctions on Iran. But he added, that with all the instability the U.S. is currently managing including a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, Afghanistan, draw down in Iraq, etc., as well as an overloaded domestic agenda, it was his impression that Washington believes that while it’s highly undesirable, at the end of the day the U.S. could live with a nuclear Iran. While for Israel, Barak said, it would be a “tipping point” in the strategic equation in the region. It would lead to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries seeking nuclear weapons, Barak said, the effective end of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and the threat that a nuclear weapon could get into terrorists’ hands and the possibility that a nuclear terrorist attack from an unclear address would be more likely.
“I feel our relations with the U.S., they went through ups and downs, but the underlying common attributes" of the two countries are the same, Barak said (according to notes taken on a Blackberry, so not an exact transcript). “Israel sees itself as an outpost of the Western way of life in the region." ...The two countries have the same common values. And that is true under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Barak said.
“In the moment of truth, the U.S. makes sure,” that Israel can defend itself, Barak said. “We felt very proud never to have asked America to fight for us. ‘Give us the tools, we do the job,’” he described Israel’s view on U.S.-Israeli security cooperation. “By supporting Israel, the U.S. relieves the need to do it itself."
“Beyond that, there’s a difference in perspective and judgement, in our internal clocks,” Barak said, regarding Iran’s nuclear program. “We do not need to coordinate” on each detail, he said.
“We strongly supported the attempt to solve through diplomacy the problem of a nuclear Iran,” Barak said. But some in the U.S. see a world with a “nuclear Pakistan, India, North Korea….From this corner of the world (Washington), [perhaps] it doesn’t change the equation” if Iran goes nuclear.
“For Israel," Barak said, it does change the equation. "It would be a tipping point.” "
Translated into common sense, Barak is saying:
- Iran, even with nukes, poses no 'existential threat' to Israel.
- Obama isn't going beyond diplomacy with Iran, won't attack Iran, and won't let Israel do so.
- Therefore, the Israelis will have to wait for the one-termer to be replaced by a Republican (that's why Barak mentioned the Republicans).
- The reason why Iran can't have nukes is that it would counter the threat posed by Israel having (illegal) nukes - the 'tipping point'. It is silly to suppose that Iran would let Arab states have nuclear technology - what Israel really fears is that the unequal balance of power caused by Israel being the only nuclear state in the Middle East would be lost.
Of course, there is a certain fairy tale aspect to the entire press conference, as there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear program. It doesn't matter to the Jews - the mere fact that Iran has scientists who could start nuclear bomb research is enough to weaken Jewish hegemony, and thus the chances of forcing Anti Assimilation Land across the Middle East.