It was supposed to be the week President Barack Obama saved the world. More than 100 heads of state are preparing to descend on New York for talks on halting climate change, promoting nuclear disarmament, defeating terrorism in Pakistan and tackling poverty in sub-Saharan Africa ”” all before a G20 meeting in Pittsburgh on Friday aimed at reaching agreements on global financial regulation and curbing bankers’ bonuses.
The headline-grabber was expected to be the relaunch of the stalled Middle East peace process, to be followed a week later by America’s first direct talks with Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979.
Instead, attempts to revive talks between Israelis and Palestinians, the cornerstone of the administration’s foreign policy, have failed so far. Western diplomats say it will take all the president’s considerable charisma to revive them.
“Charisma” will not be a sufficient shield to protect Israel from an Iranian atomic bomb.
#1 Israeli nukes are enough of a deterrent. Chances are, Israel will attack Iran before Iran attacks Israel. From their standpoint, they’re worried about Israeli aggression.
That assumes, #2, Iran can be deterred. They’re already on record making the cold-blooded calculation of losing a few million Iranians in exchange for annihilating the Zionist Entity and ushering in the era of the Twelfth Imam. What’s not to like?
#3 I’m impressed that you believe the Iranian leaders. Kind of convenient, isn’t it? I think it’s all bullying and bluster, and an attempt to get the US to talk, because they believe Israel runs US foreign policy (true? Well, perhaps not anymore). You disbelieve them when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons. But you believe them when they make hyperbolic statements about Israel.
[Edited]. Iran already has bombs. Why don’t they just go ahead and do it, if they are serious about it? After all, from your view point, they are pretty irrational. So what if they get nuked in return?
Maybe the Iranian leaders use anti-Israeli opinion to silence internal dissent, a large part of which is tired of the corruption of the Revolutionary Guard and the pieties of the theocrats. To me it looks like a pep talk to a government that was on the verge of being overthrown. To you it’s addressed to Israel. Rhetoric and diplomacy are a little more complex than I think you believe. It would be nice if everyone said what they meant to say, but just watching the Sopranos, you might discover that there’s a lot more that goes on.
Most Iranians don’t want a war with Israel. They would rather have trade and freedom. Of course there is one really good way to ensure the hardliners maintain power. Bomb them. It strengthens their hold upon the government. And it will make Iran into the symbol of Muslim resistance, making it harder for our own Arab allies to control their own internal dissent.
Obama’s soft touch made it hard for the hardliners to make a convincing case that America is the devil. The view, of course, is convenient for both neocons and the hardliners, who need each other to justify their aggressive worldviews.
It would be nice if the Saudi Peace proposal was taken a bit more seriously. I haven’t seen and Israeli peace proposal out there. Am I missing something?
[Edited by Elf – please avoid personal comments addressed to other commenters]
In case it had escaped your gimlet eye, the Iranian hard-liners already have no qualms about stealing elections, jailing, torturing and murdering dissidents; all under the feather touch of The One’s foreign policy, with uranium enrichment proceeding apace. It really doesn’t matter what “most Iranians” want, does it? The goons are going to hold onto power whether Israel bombs them or not.
Why don’t the Iranians bomb Israel now? Please, the question answers itself. Iran only has delivery capability that range using missiles, and a few high-explosive missiles rained down on Tel Aviv will only kill a few hundred Jews. Delightful to the mullahs, to be sure, but not nearly enough to eliminate the Zionist Entity. To do that, you need to put a batches of isotope surprise on them…now that’s worth absorbing a few million martyrs for.
The reason to believe the “death to Israel” rhetoric and disbelieve the statements about the peaceful ends of their nuclear program is that the two are consistent. Iran isn’t going to obliterate Israel with its puppets Hamas and Hezbollah. For that, it will need nukes. That’s why it’s developing them. And when it uses them, it will be the leader of the Islamic world, no matter how much the UN moans and groans.
That’s a fascinating fable you’re telling, Jefferson. So, Israel wouldn’t blow out Iran upon Iran’s nuking Israel? I suppose that if Iran’s leaders are insane, then you have a point. I’m aware that the revolutionary Guard likes a fight, but I still think you’re overinterpreting the the hyperbolic statements you’re reading.
If you REALLY think that the main driver of Iranian foreign policy is bombing Israel soley because it exists, while Israel responds with multiple nukes of its own, then there’s probably not much I can do to convince you otherwise. I have a suspicion, however, that there are probably lots of internal conflicts in Iran that are more practically interesting to its various institutions. I also think that Iran is far more interested in the US than in Israel. I note you didn’t disagree with the idea that Iran thinks Israel runs US foreign policy. Because in that case, it makes sense. If you don’t like American foreign policy, talk about its proxy.
I suppose that if I believed that people don’t change their governments and try to reform them, I’d find your world view a bit more plausible. I tend to think that demographically and socially, Iran’s changing. I’ve met many here in this country: and they are secular and patiently waiting. They all say that the worst thing for the opposition is for Israel to bomb them. The mullahs are losing power, and the more they bluster, the weaker they probably are. It’s human nature. The weak puff themselves up. If you really wanted Iran to change, Jefferson, you’d let Iranians change it themselves. But I suspect a reformed Iran wouldn’t be convenient for the comic book version of war you entertain.
Most likely, there would have never been a rebellion in the first place without Obama’s light touch. The credibility of the mullahs is strained when Obama doesn’t fit the US as devil category. There’s plenty of evidence to show that Iranians don’t believe what the mullahs tell them. In part because we aren’t reacting to every word they say with a wagging figure or vague threats. The mullahs love it when we wag our fingers and get all blustery. It allows them to show their people how nasty we are.
Your interpretation of Iranian foreign policy seems quite Manichean. And if I thought the world worked in such clear ways (Me and people like me good. You and people like you bad), rather than have a world view that saw nations as having interests, some revealed, some concealed, I’d concede your points. I just think its a bit more complicated than the caricatures we make of our selves and others.
I think Iran wants to be a developed country. They’ve got the intellectual capital. They want nuclear energy. (Can they get nuclear energy without having weapons capacity? I don’t know.) And if I thought Israel was an aggressor, which is how many Muslims feel, I’d probably want to construct nuclear weapons in self-defense. After all, it is much more likely that Israel will hit first. It’s like the playground. The little kid can say all he wants, but when the big kid hits first, he started it. Of course, do I think the Revolutionary guards want a fight? Probably. I just don’t think we should give them what they want.
[blockquote]That’s a fascinating fable you’re telling, Jefferson. So, Israel wouldn’t blow out Iran upon Iran’s nuking Israel? I suppose that if Iran’s leaders are insane, then you have a point. [/blockquote]
Like I said, they’ve already made the explicit, public calculation that annihilating Israel would certainly invite a massive counterattack from the Zionist entity, and have concluded it would kill millions of Iranians. They have also said it might well be worth it to have a [i]judenrein[/i] Middle East and undisputed leadership of the Islamic world. I’ll leave it to you to gauge the level of sanity attached to that.
[blockquote]I note you didn’t disagree with the idea that Iran thinks Israel runs US foreign policy. Because in that case, it makes sense. If you don’t like American foreign policy, talk about its proxy. [/blockquote]
Oh no, I’d never dispute that. It’s standard fare for the blinkered thugocracies in the Arab world. It’s also [i]de rigeur[/i] for nutball survivalists in Idaho cabins and nominees to Obama’s National Intelligence Council. I recall seeing it in virtually every “anti-war” demonstration over the last few years, too.
I’m certain the Iranian people want to change their government, too. But the guys in the government don’t seem too eager to go along with the plan right now and, let’s face it, the guy most likely to head the opposition isn’t exactly conciliatory toward Israel, obliterating the Zionist entity being the sort of thing bipartisan coalitions are built around in Iran.
So what we have here is a race: Will the maniac mullahs running Iran get the bomb and nuke Israel before the Iranian people string them up by the heels like the Italians did Mussolini? Would their replacement be much better? If I were Israel, I’d probably take my focus off the intent of each and concentrate on the capability they are trying to develop. Remove that capability, and the intent isn’t that much of a factor anymore.
Jefferson, I just think the Iranians are all bluster. They are a weak power with big intentions. However, the supreme leader has said they reject nuclear weapons. If he is lying, he’s going to have some bigger internal problems later on.
Are the Mullah’s maniacs? Your Persian is probably better than mine, but I’m not sure if they are as intent on suicide as you think they are. Although its convenient to think they are insane, remember, they did offer a peace proposal to the US about six years ago, which we rejected. At that point, they probably didn’t think we were that interested in peace. Also remember, we used “insanity” as a way of threatening the USSR. It did, in our case, work.
As far as Israel running American foreign policy, you mean [Edited] people like [url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html]Mearsheimer and Walt?[/url] [Edited]
Hm – currently the Arab Countries are busy trying to isolate Iran. Some have enven hypothesized an Arab-Israel Alliance, and given the Abdullah peace plan, it is a possibility. Bomb them and you destroy the Iranian opposition, and disarm the useful Arab-Persion tension by elevating the Jewish-Muslim one.
the fact is that bombing them would be stupid. It would, if anything, make the world far more dangerous than it is. And it would also prove to the Muslim mind that Israel is the aggressor, and illustrate the the man on the street that Israel cannot be trusted, and is not a nation that wants peace, but like the US, is hell bent on a crusade against Islam.
Understanding Iran’s rational interests rather than assuming irrationality is the most coherent, pragmatic and useful way to avoid conflict. Of course, we’d have to treat them rationally.
[Edited by Elf]
[blockquote]Jefferson, I just think the Iranians are all bluster. They are a weak power with big intentions. However, the supreme leader has said they reject nuclear weapons. If he is lying, he’s going to have some bigger internal problems later on. [/blockquote]
You mean like the problems he’s having now? Will there be anyone left to brutalize, imprison or murder?
I’m glad to see you agreeing with me about intent and capability. Iran has only regional influence now, but has loads of intent. With the bomb, they acquire all kinds of capability, and with that missing component satisfied, they will be a true and implacable threat in more than one way.
Oh, and precisely like Mearsheimer and Walt. I haven’t seen them compared to terrorists until your post, but they definitely have a problem with Jews.