I got some interesting email re this post yesterday on the former Mossad chief who says we — and Israel — should talk to Iran and Syrian. I thought this reader made a very good point in his first paragraph:

Yes, he was a serious guy, but how does Halevy figure
that Israel’s rhetoric prevents anything at all? Iran
gets to call for the extermination of the Israel, but
if Israel says Iran is an existential threat that
“gets in the way of finding a peaceful solution to the
Iranian nuclear problem”? That sounds more like
Carter than Mossad.
For the Mullahs, “survival and perpetuation of the
regime is a holy obligation” sure, deterrable? Iran
may be wrong thinking that turning over the bomb to
Hezbollah clears them, but some guy in an alley may be
utterly and completely wrong in thinking that he can
kill his companion and get away with it.
Their victims still die.
Forget the Mullahs, Iran’s Halevy has more reason to
think his country is “invincible” than Israel’s
Halevy.
What does their Halevy think Iran can get away with?

And then a friend working in Israel chimed in with this:

FWIW, Halevy is one of those Israeli versions of some characters we’re all used to in the U.S. — the Anthony Zinnis, the John Abizaids — guys with great resumes, amazing careers, but, alas, very mediocre political judgment — especially that particular variety of mediocre political judgment that is particularly seductive to lefty media types (“peace is possible with Hamas and Iran and Syria if only the warmongers would just listen to me!”). Halevy is legendary in Israel for having batty and dangerous views on Iran, Hamas, and Syria. It’s funny that Ignatius doesn’t mention that part of the Halevy story (he probably doesn’t know it).
BTW loved your piece on NBC. Sent it to my environmentalist mother (she’s buying a Prius this week) and it’ll hopefully twist the knife even further.