Neil Clark, a prominent commentator for the Guardian, wrote on his blog last Friday that “A nuclear-armed Iran would not be very dangerous. In fact a nuclear-armed Iran—and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries threatened by the insatiable neo-conservative war machine, such as Syria, would be the best guarantor of peace in the Middle East. . . . The President of Iran has of course denied that his country has any plans to build a nuclear bomb and that his only interest is to develop nuclear energy. In the interests of peace, I do hope he’s lying.”

He is, of course, lying. And so is Mr. Clark. The only peace with Israel that is acceptable to President Ahmadinejad is the peace of the grave. Several times he has called for “the false regime occupying Palestine” to be “wiped off the map,” “annihilated,” “eliminated,” or “erased.” Zionists are “nearing the last days of their lives,” and their state “has reached its finishing line.”

Mr. Clark blames Israel “and its more fanatical supporters” for the confrontation with Iran. It is a standard ploy for anti-Semites to depict Jews as warmongers. In his speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939, Hitler, too, insisted that he wanted peace, but warned that “if the Jews . . . should succeed once more in plunging the nations into a world war, then the consequence will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”

Mr. Clark and others—such as President Chirac—who insist that Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel are being disingenuous. Arming Iran and Syria, the world’s leading sponsors of terrorists, with nuclear weapons would almost certainly lead to the rapid emergence of nuclear terrorism. Mr. Clark may not care what happens to Israel, but he too, along with the rest of the Western world, would be put in mortal peril.