BBC Sounds, music, radio, podcasts.

Good evening. Death to Israel. Iran's supreme leader said not long ago is not a slogan,

it's a policy. The Jewish state, he said, was a cancerous tumor to be uprooted and destroyed.

His military commander, responsible for arming the proxy militias on Israel's borders,

threatened Israelis will not even have a cemetery in Palestine to bury their own corpses.

The enmity was not exactly a secret.

That commander was one of the top generals and nuclear scientists killed in Israel's devastating preemptive strikes on Iran.

Self-defense is more difficult to argue if you land the first blow, but Israel says it has a special truly existential case. According to the

Israelis, Iran was within reach of being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Israel is a small, largely urbanized country.

Just one nuclear warhead could all but wipe it out. Israel itself has the bomb, of course,

or so it's widely believed, but even the doctrine of mutually assured destruction,

which has held nuclear powers in Czech for 80 years, might not apply to an Iranian theocracy

that actively celebrates martyrdom. How far were, are the attacks justified, the abandonment

of diplomacy, the targeting of leaders and scientists, the collateral damage and death, the risks

of a wider war? And incidentally, why is it okay for some countries to have the bomb, but not others?

That's our moral maze tonight, the panel, the commentator and campaigner, Inaya Fularen

Iman, Carmody Gray, Professor of Integral Ecology at Nymigan University,

Mona Siddiqui, Professor of Islamic and inter-religious studies at Edinburgh

University and the priest and polemicist, Charles Fraser. Jars of Christian theology got much help

in this, turning the other cheek. It doesn't really cut it with nuclear weapons.

Well, nuclear weapons are a whole other category of wrong, and Iran is run by an apocalyptic

death cult, hell-bent on wiping Israel from the map,

...