Thanks for bringing this up. It bothers me that so much commentary about Iran seems to systematically exaggerate the scope of various anti-Israel comments made by Iranian leaders like Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad. I don't know whether it's lazines or deliberate deception or some combination of the two.

The same thing has been done with Ahmadinejad's "wiped off the map" remark which ,in the context of the speech, was clearly a reiteration of Iran's one-state policy and not a threat of the physical destruction of Israel. Here is the speech for those who haven't read it.

The bottom line is that the current Iranian regime is nasty and hostile in many respects and it would be a good idea to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. However it is extremely unlikely to initiate a nuclear attack against Israel or anyone else and commentators need to stop pulling quotes out of context to suggest otherwise.

Actually the bottom line is that Israel must be forced to unilaterally disarm its entire nuclear arsenal under threat of total economic sanctions by the US and Europe. The Zionists here can claim that Israel will never give them up, but their economy would evaporate in months if sanctions were applied against them, unlike Iran which has been under sanctions and can survive more sanctions.

Then we can go to the Iranians and say, "Look, Israel doesn't have any more nukes. You can send inspectors with the IAEA people to prove it to yourself that Dimona is under international supervision. Now can we make sure you don't divert any of your nuclear material? If you can, we'll help you build the nuclear energy program you need to support your future energy needs. And we will also join with you in pushing for a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. And we will cease supporting Israel with five billion in foreign aid a year. We can't guarantee we'll find a solution to the Palestinian issue, but we'll try in good faith."

The Iranians would bend over backwards to help us and would stop their nuclear weapons program (to the degree it exists) in its tracks.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

I doubt whether Rafsanjani is proposing a nuclear first strike as a "not irrational" policy, given nuclear parity with Israel.

But what is he proposing? It sounds like this to me: we can't use our numerical superiority to destroy Israel when they have all the nukes, but if we had nukes that would become an option again.

It would be nice to think that he just wants nukes in order to deter Israel from indulging expansionist appetites, but I really can't read the first paragraph quoted by Matt that way. The "imperialists' strategy" that he is talking about, after all, seems to consist of maintaining Israel as "colonialist base," against the Arab and Muslim hordes, by providing it with WMD. That is what he says will "come to a standstill" if the Muslim world gets a nuke.

So, although I am as opposed to going to war with Iran over its nuclear program as I could possibly be, I don't think these statements are at all innocuous. He is talking about getting nukes in order to make feasible another conventional war against Israel -- a war that would aim at its destruction. But, to put it bluntly, I regard that as Israel's problem, not the US's.

There is also the point being made by the Iranians similar to the boast of the Chinese that the nuclear arsenal of the West is a "paper tiger"; that Chinese population is so great that it can absorb the punishment of the American weaponry and still fight on. My point is not to debate the truth of their boast; but to indicate not all swagger is to be taken literally. If it were, then Iran should be on a war footing right now given the release of the Hersh article. Having seen the swagger of the Bush administration, combined for their disregard for international norms and opinions, their disregard for human life; their disregard for facts; I am much more concerned about the actions of the US than the Iranians.

Who thought the US would end up as the world's leading terrorist six years ago? The more nuclear powers ensures the more potential for a crazy to do a crazy act. Tyrants know that scapegoat wars are good politics and why would anyone think Iranians are any better than Americans?

Iran, North Korea and Iraq (under Hussein) want the world to quake that they have the weapons to blackmail the rest of us. Is the present leadership of the first two countries sane enough that you think they are bluffing? With the help of Bush, most of the muslim world hates/fears the US and views Israel as an agent of this evil. In a worldwide vote, we would probably win the prize as the most dangerous country.

Iran scares me as much as North Korea does and almost as much as Bush does. If I lived in Israel, I would consider a first strike against Iran before they achieved nuclear capability--and I consider myself less crazy than today's world leaders. Through the eyes of a holocaust surviver in Tel Aviv, Iran is asking for it--"Never again" is not insanity.

Diplomacy is only effective with great diplomats--and we ain't got too many of them in any of the above mentioned countries.

Left out of this argument is the vitally important concept of our "mutual defense" arrangements with Israel. If we were to make it perfectly clear that the U.S. would come to the aid of Israel in the event of any first strike (and I'm sure we would - and should) then above equation of survivability of Iran, or any other nation, muslim or not, becomes moot.

The whole line of reasoning of Kuntzel is just plain stupid.

[Goldhagen] at least did us the courtesy of providing the crucial context line …and that, I think, made it clear to any fairminded reader that Goldhagen was misconstruing things.

Since when does a writer undermine his own argument? Or is it only fair-minded readers who are privy to the deception? Including the first line may give Goldhagen some cover but it does not make his interpretation honest.

Are you arguing that the President of Iran is being unfairly smeared?

Matt

The idea that Rastanjani's statement is made benign by the first line is rather unwarranted.
First there are no colonialists. Israelis do not represent any colonial power but Israel was created to allow Jews to leave all the assorted European powers.

Given that there are about 7 million Israelis and 700 million Arabs and 80 million Iranians it is not obvious to me what you see in Rastanjani's statement that is so great. That Iran won't use nuclear weapons directly against Israel but use them to allow a mass invasion?

Since the 1973 there has been no armed conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, except the Palestinians, and two peace treaties one with Egypt and one with Jordan. Will the Arabs really see it as a benefit for the Persians to make the Israelis fear renewed attacks?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Made me think that Shafer may have lost a little velocity since his Washington Times days. Happens to us all, I guess.

Arnold
The need for your post shows the general problem with discussion of ME politics. The culture of misrepresenting what Iran says (Iran wants to nuke Israel!) goes hand in hand with the culture of misrepresenting what US commentators (like MY) say that Iran says (What do you see in Rastanjani's statement that is so great?).

"It is completely irrational and insane to contemplate a first nuclear first strike designed to murder millions of people and destroy a society. To casually suggest otherwise should shock any civilized person."

This is of course complete nonsense. The US, Russia and others have been contemplating exactly that for the last fifty years. Why is it so shocking when an Iranian does it?

Have you ever read any Herman Kahn?

Rafsanjani is merely rationally explaining that Israel cannot afford to sustain a first strike. However, it DOES have a retaliatory second-strike capability. While the nuking of Tel Aviv (and perhaps Haifa) would essentially destroy Israel in terms of its government and primary population center, Israel could still destroy the primary population centers and governments of most of the Arab nations (depending on whether they have 100, 200, 300 or 400 nukes and the size of these nukes.)

Rafsanjani is merely saying that if it comes to that, Israel would be destroyed, while the bulk of the Muslim world would not.

And it is not irrational to see that this could happen.

Rafsanjani is not advocating anything here. He is merely pointing out the logic in Israel's and the US's opposition to the Iranian nuclear program - that if Iran were to have even one nuclear weapon Israel would no longer be entirely free to do as it pleases in the Middle East without the possibility of it coming down to Israel having to absorb a first strike.

Rafsanjani is obviously smart enough to know that if Iran even contemplated attacking Israel with a nuclear first strike that the US - with its vastly greater arsenal - would destroy Iran completely.

The meaning of all this is that a nuclear armed Iran would have significantly more geopolitical freedom in the region. Not all that much more, since Israel and the US would still be vastly more powerful - but the change would be significant compared to the present equations.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Agreed. Good summary of the position.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

First of all, we don't HAVE any "mutual defense agreements" with Israel. That would require Israel defining its actual borders, and they have refused to do so because they believe Israel should be much bigger than it is.

Second, despite the above, everyone already knows that any nuclear first strike on Israel - or even the serious contemplation of such by someone with ACTUAL nukes - would result in a US first strike - and certainly a US counterstrike. Not to mention that Israel itself already has a retaliatory second strike capability via its submarines.

Third, the point of Rafsanjani's recent remarks about "survivability" is still correct. The Muslim world as a whole could survive a US or Israeli counterstrike on any given Muslim country - or even most of the Muslim countries. It would take them decades to recover, but they would. (And you know we'd never nuke the oil fields!)

The whole point of emphasizing survivability is simply to point out that Israel's and Iran's geopolitical options are changed if another country gets nukes. It will no longer be the case that Israel can operate with near impunity in the Middle East.

It is specifically that Israel will no longer be able to use the US as its stalking horse in attempting to destroy all the other Muslim nations because those nations - threatened with destruction ANYWAY - will possibly be able to also destroy Israel in a practical sense.

Which is WHY Israel is doing so - and WHY we are having a runup to a war in Iran.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

How about: yes.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

First of all, that's not what Rafsanjani said. He said colonialists are USING Israel to keep the Arabs in line. Which is true - except that Israel is also using the colonialists to keep the Arabs in line.

Specifically Israel is using the West to destroy one Arab nations after another - first Iraq, now Iran, then Syria, then Jordan, etc.

"That Iran won't use nuclear weapons directly against Israel but use them to allow a mass invasion?"

I don't buy that interpretation either.

What he is saying is that IF Iran or some other Muslim nation had nukes, Israel would be unable to have unilateral freedom to do what it wants in the Middle East.

Specifically, Israel would no longer be able to use the US to destroy Muslim countries for its benefit. Why? Because as long as the the Muslim governments so targeted KNOW that they are going to be targeted ANYWAY, all bets are off. They could then commit to the destruction of Israel using nukes, knowing they have nothing to lose. And since Israel cannot survive a nuclear first strike in a practical sense - even though it has a retaliatory second strike capability - this would prevent Israel from pushing regime changes in the region.

And THAT would limit Israel's freedom of operation in the region, and enhance - to some small degree anyway - Iran's freedom of operation in the region.

And that is WHY Israel pushed the US to attack Iraq, and WHY Israel is pushing the US to attack Iran.

He is also saying that IF Israel had no nukes and the Muslims didn't, even though the Muslim governments would still not have military parity with Israel, that could theoretically be fixed by spending enough oil dollars. The end result would be the same - Israel would no longer be able to push for regime change in the region.

Which is another reason WHY Israel is pushing for the US to attack all the oil countries - seize the oil, control the governments, and prevent them from achieving military parity with Israel.

Because once the Muslims achieve military parity with Israel in either a nuclear or non-nuclear sense, then Israel will be forced to accept a "one-state" solution to the Palestinian issue.

The Muslim nations will never be able to unilaterally initiate an attempt to DESTROY Israel because of the US protective umbrella. BUT parity with Israel would force Israel to negotiate a resolution to the Palestinian issue.

And THIS is why Israel wants the Muslim governments destroyed - because the fanciful Zionist dream of a secure pure Jewish ethnic state would come to nought. Not to mention the even more fanciful Zionist dream of controlling the entire Middle East and its oil.

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com 

Gee, thanks, RSH --> my one ray of hope and you block it out with something that is probably true!

One question.  Can Bush pre-emptively do this without the approval of Congress?  I honestly think that if this followed the same dog and pony show motif that they put together to get into Iraq, people might actually take to the streets ala the recent hispanic demonstrations.  I certainly would, and I'd keep my kids home from school to do it with me.

Could he/would he just do it, and to hell with all of us?  I didnt mean the pun when I wrote it, but I do think it is his weird idea about bringing about armageddon that figures into this.  This guy is sick, sick, sick!  You'd think he'd at least care about his own children!

Jan Knaus

I believe he can, but I could be wrong. I believe he could hang an attack on Iran on the "authorization of force against terrorists" resolution Congress passed that he relies on for everything else he's been doing - Afghanistan, Guantanamo, wiretapping, everything except Katrina.

I don't think he would do that without briefing Congress first - but then, according to Sy Hersh, he's already done that. He has discussed attacking Iran with several members of Congress - including one Democrat - and we can guess who that was - and every one of them was on board with it. All they cared about was whether the bunker buster nukes would go deep enough!

In any event, it would be easy to foment some additional reasons to attack Iran at the appropriate time. After all, look at what he was doing with Saddam - thinking about painting a US spy plane in UN colors and having Saddam shoot it down. What couldn't he do in terms of setting up an Iran-Iraq border incident, or having some of our Special Forces troops in Iran get captured and paraded by the Iranians?

He could just announce that some new satellite imagery showed the Iranian military at some hitherto unknown secret nuclear site with missile silos, or some crap. Once it's dust from a nuclear strike, who's going to be the wiser?

Richard Steven Hack

www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com