Backing up the argument: Prior to the war, Iraq was not Israel’s primary threat, although the Israeli security establishment was somewhat ambivalent about the extent of danger from Iraq. While Iraq supported Palestinian terrorism against Israel over the last number of years, it was only a minor financial sponsor compared to Iran and Saudi Arabia. The primary state that threatened Israel was Iran. If Israel wanted to prod– which it did not –the US to go to war on its behalf, it would have chosen Iran, not Iraq. Iraq was a potential primary threat for other countries in the region, like Iran, Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia. Besides the declared objectives of the Iraq War, there is something persuasive about the thesis of former counterterrorism advisor to the US National Security Council Richard Clarke's that in the case of Iraq, the dominant consideration was concern over the long-term stability of the House of Saud and the need for the US to replace a shaky Saudi Arabia with an alternative friendly source of oil for the industrial West. Considering the widespread presence of Al-Qaeda cells across virtually all parts of Saudi Arabia that has now become evident after repeated terrorist attacks in that country, this American consideration has been proven to be prescient. But this has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. In early 2003, of all of Israel's neighbors, it was Syria who possessed by far the largest stockpile of ballistic missiles - at least 500 missiles, or about ten times the size of the Iraqi arsenal. The Syrians could mount on them the same biological or chemical warheads as the Iraqis, with one important difference: Iraq had to reduce the size of its warheads in order to extend the range of its missiles; thus, the quantities of non-conventional material that could be delivered by the Syrian missile forces were considerably greater than those of Iraq. ( See background )