The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself. Cohen WaPo 7/18

If Cohen believes this and urges restraint then any disproportionate war waged by Israel must be necessarily unjust if not unreasonable.

Daniel: You do realize, right, that to call anyone you disagree with an Israeli hater or a Jew killer has a way of diminishing the strength of your arguments.

First of all, it's "sequitur". If you're going to use big words, spell them properly.

Secondly, that the U.S. has similarly idiotic and immoral doctrines is no reason for Israel to adopt them.

Thirdly, I'm sure Colin Powell would vehemently deny that the "Powell doctrine" has anything to do with Bush's strategy (is there one?) in Iraq.

Fourthly, if you're going to argue that Israel can use force without restraint, then surely people dispossessed of their land by the creation of Israel are equally justified in employing violence. This sort of argument is morally obscene.

LOL

I don't know what to say except that is hysterical.

Gitlin's post is embarrassingly absurd. If it isn't about letting Jews die in order to meet his sense of moral decorum then what is its point?

I noticed that you decided to make a ridiculous attack on me rather that address my actual point. If Professor Gitlin thinks my point is so weakened let him answer the actual point.

I can see that the thought police works like this. No attack on Israel is unacceptable. No misstatement of defenses of Israel is beyond the pale. However, if you actually demand answer for such behavior people get all upset.

What is there to say but that your failure to face the truth of what I asked Professor Gitlin makes your personal attack on me amusing.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

>> Cohen: "Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."

Man, do I hate this "Israelis are just doomed by fate" claptrap.

No Mr. Cohen, they're not doomed. If Israel showed common sense and moral courage, it could secure a lasting peace in the region. The very few who wish to push it into the sea could be reduced to the level of a "nuisance" (to quote Kerry) and the overwhelming majority of its neighbors could live side by side just fine (ever heard of Jordan and Egypt?) Palestinians are not fated by history to be Israel's perpetual enemies. Just give them a viable country -- not a prison camp.

But perpetual war is what the likes of Richard Cohen will get if they have their way.

I am really not sure I understand your first paragraph. I believe the Professor Gitlin and much of the far left hold Israel and the United States to a standard that they hold no one else and given the context especially Arabs. It is not about whose lives lost in war, I don't understand why Hezbollah apologists aren't outraged at the Lebanese lives they have put at risk, but what Israel is suppose to do in order to protect its citizens.

Given that the United States takes its wars to other people's countries dosn't the effect of the Powell doctrine in reality mean America is going to inflict enormous amounts of civilian casualties rather than risk extra U.S. ones? Is this not one of the complaints of U.S. actual targeting from the Gulf War to Iraq?

I know that Israel is stating over and over that they are doing all they can to avoid civilian casualties unlike Hezbollah. Michael Waltzer discusses this point in his "War Fair" essay in the NewRepublicOnline. Waltzer starts from the premise that the Palestinians and Hezbollah use human shields. "There is no neat solution to their(Israeli soldiers) dilemma. When Palestinian miltants launch rocket attacks from civilian areas, they are themselves responsible--and no one else is--for the civilain deaths cause by Isreali couterfire." Waltzer does say the Israelis have to make an extra effort to avoid hitting the civilian shields. That seems perfectly reasonable. I would like Professor Gitlin or anyone here make some effort at balance.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

We're asking the wrong question.

Israel is a sovereign state. Israel is free to make whatever decisions it chooses - wise, foolish, moral, immoral.

The right question is --- are the actions of the United States out of proportion?

Hezbollah did not attack us. More important, the people of Lebanon did not attack us.

What justifies our arming and rearming Israel? What justifies blocking a ceasefire, in fact, using our superpower to block the wishes of virtually every other nation on the planet? How does that keep Americans safer? Is New York safer today because no American should ever be able to ask about the Lebanese "Why do they hate us"? I don't feel safer. I feel ashamed of my country. I am particularly ashamed of the Democratic Party and it's craven use of this war to position itself in what it must assume is some cleverly hawkish frame.

Place the blame where it belongs - on the United States, on the Republican Party and on the Democratic Party.

Those with power have the responsibility to use it wisely. Ask any Sensei, who are arguably the most personnally powerful people you will have ever met, how they handle dangerous situations.

There is no way that this conflict will end through military force alone.

Let me try to make the first paragraph even more specific. Correct me if I misunderstand, but I have the impression you want Americans to be more concerned about Israeli deaths than any other country. Forget Gitlin and the far left. Do expect me, Howard C. Berkowitz, as an individual American non-Jew, to be more concerned about Israeli deaths than in Canada or Sierra Leone?

Again, please correct me if I am not understanding you, but my impression is that you believe in an Israeli exceptionalism in which all the world's citizens should guard Israel beyond all else.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No not at all. As you know we have exchanged views on helping the people of Dafur.

I do believe that Professor Gitlin's post continues a post-modern tendency that asks Israelis to be at greater risk than anyone else. Cohen's column was addressing the issue of the goals involved in Israel's effort. This is not just about two soldiers but to protect the citizens of Israelf from Hezbollah missiles fired from Lebanon often among Lebanese civilians.

I think the concept of proportionality is missing but when it comes to Israelis protecting the lives of Israelis. No one seems to be all the concerned what Israel is actually facing.

I also think that there is an enormous amount of hypocrisy on the part of Americans. The American right, the Safires and Krautheimers attacked Barak for his efforts at peace from the safety of Washington. I think people here are equally glib with what they ask of Israelis.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

When I said "not at all" was an answer to your question. I think that all individuals deserve your concern. I did not emphasize it only because the thrust of Gitlin's post nor my reply was not on that point but on keeping Israelis safe.

I do think that Cohen's point, even if it does not apply to you personally does apply to Israel. There has been a l,000 year effort to exterminate Jews. Just a decade before my birth 6 million Jews were murdered as an effort to exterminate all Jews on earth. Millions more were tortured and displaced. This was not done just by Geman's but by the Spanish and the French in the West to the Nazi Arab allies in the East. After the war Jews in Eastern Europe were persecuted and the Jews of the Arab world were evicted from their homes. This tends to annoy non-Jews but I don't blame Israelis one bit being for not caring much about what the rest of the world will keep Israelis safe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I agree that Hizbollah's warmaking is also not just here. But just to be precise, I would say that where it probably most clearly fails from a jus in bello perspective is not that it's means are disproportionate to its ends, but that its means are indiscriminate. Firing rockets from a distance into cities does not show a great deal of care in discriminating combatants from non-combattats

Of course, one could raise all sorts of other jus ad bello questions about the legitimacy of its cause, its intentions and the whole question of "legitimate authority" when weak or failed states, and sub-national groups, are involved.

Correction: I see you commenting about Darfur citizens below, after I wrote this post. Just to be sure, then, you are OK with my treating Israel's safety equally with those of other countries to which I have no ties, no more and no less? It is also OK for me to care more about countries where I do have friends and family?


The comment below seemed to be directed at a question I wasn't asking.

This tends to annoy non-Jews but I don't blame Israelis one bit being for not caring much about what the rest of the world will keep Israelis safe.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I spent most of last week in a hospital bed worrying about whether or not I was going to lose my leg. Every TV but the one at my bed was blaring CNN with its repetitive reports about how Hezbollah was at fault and how Israel was forced into this action.

While I am a Christian, I attended daycare at the local Jewish Community Center decades ago. I know that's a long time ago but my formative years taught me to think of Israel as a wonderful place. I still approve of Israel but I disapprove of certain aggressive tactics.

That's already enough hemming and hawing to give everyone ammunition but I'm trying to make a fine point here. Israel and the United States are among a few countries that occupy a pedestal in my mind. When nations I look up to carry out policies that disturb me, it is doubly troubling.

Hopefully this turned out to be a false report but I remember learning that Israel warned the citizens of a town to evacuate and then bombed the evacuation convoy. I think I remember that Italian citizens were killed or wounded.

Daniel, I don't know how to feel. I believe that Israel is provoked on a regular basis. I studied the Holocaust and absorbed the Israeli national conscience where the highest duty is to keep it from happening again. I may not understand it because I haven't lived it but I try.

When the United States attacked Iraq on blatantly false pretenses, I felt a deep shame. I felt something similar when I heard about the convoy being hit and other innocent bystanders. When nations I don't care about do such things, I feel anger. Israel and the United States are supposed to be better somehow.

I am saddened because I believe the IDF went too far this time. I am numb to the fact that Hezbollah and others carry out so many deadly attacks. I am saddened because I cannot tell you what the IDF should have done differently. I can make educated guesses but I cannot place myself in their shoes. I am frustrated because we've reached a point where it only takes one person with a bomb strapped to their chest to prolong the tragedy that is Israel and the Palestinian Authority. I mourn the lost efforts of Rabin and Barak.

I mourn the fact that whatever defense Israel seems to attempt only worsens its security situation. There's far too much to mourn.

Hezbollah's actions are morally obscene.

The endless "he did it first" "No, he did it first" argument of apologists for Israeli terrorism and Arab terrorism is morally obscene.

"The Powell doctrine has been generally praised"

By whom? People who believe violence is an acceptable tool of foreign policy? Gangsters? I imagine the Nazis would approve of it. The logical conclusion of the Powell doctrine is the use nuclear weapons.

Again, it is moral obscenity. Nothing else.

I'd just like to point out that Cohen's essay, and many of the responses to it, seem to suffer from some serious confusion about the concept of "proportionality" as it is traditionally used in discussions of the justice of war.

Just war theory, for example, requires that one's end be legitimate, and that the means used be proportional to those ends. The state who engages in a war with a just cause and legitimate war aims is required by the theory to limit its violence to only that degree that is required in order to accomplish the end.

Just war theory does not require that the balance of destruction or death caused by one side be "in proportion" to the balance of destruction or death caused on the other side, which seems to be the absurd view Cohen is arguing against. Proportionality is not a matter of counting bodies and weighing rubble.

I should note that, in my opinion, traditional just war theory is a rather clumsy and antiquated tool for the evaluation of political violence in the modern age It contains a certain amount of wisdom, but also a lot of hoary anachronistic presuppositions about social and political conditions that no longer exist. It also relies on some crude, arrant moral nonsense like the "doctrine of double effect" which generates ridiculous conclusions in a variety of real and hypothetical circumstances. The only way to avoid those conclusions is to lard the original, blunt doctrine with so many amemdments that it becomes indistinguishable from consequentialism.

The most problematic part of traditional just war theory, to my mind, is the trouble it has with common sense distictions about degrees of necessity. A state may have all sorts of aims that are legitimate. But some of these aims are things that would just be nice to accomplish; others are absolutely vital interest. So more is needed thana proportionality between the means and a legitimate end. The greater the harm that is inflicted in achieving the end, the greater must be the importance of the end.

Traditional just war theory also has trouble dealing with the the probability of the pieces of practical reasoning that lead to the inferences from ends to means, especially in relation to alternatives. Suppose X is some vital interest, and suppose there is an argument that claims accomplishing Y will be conducive to accomplishing X. Does the inference from doing X to doing Y thereby justify one in inflicting some harm Z in order to accomplish Y? Surely it has something to do with how much damage is involved in Z, and also something to do with how certain the argument is from doing X to doing Y. Weak and speculative arguments from ends to means don't carry as much moral weight as tight and certain ones.

Now, if Cohen is really correct in his implicit assertion that Israel's failure to act in roughly the manner in which it is currently acting would be "suicidal", and that its actions are thus necessary to secure its survival, then so long as we assume Israel's attempt to secure its survival is a legitimate aim, it's means are proportional to its end. So rather than arguing "disproportionality is OK", he should be arguing "Israel's arguments are proportional to its legitimate military needs". I hate to lend assistance to Cohen like this, but I can't leave illogic alone.

A more interesting question, then, is whether Cohen is right about the military necessity of Israel's conduct. And I say no. Indeed, Israel historically makes extravagant claims about the various dire "existential" threats it faces - every week its some new existential threat - and the need to thoroughly pulverize its enemies, and its enemies cousins, and its enemies cousins' cousins, and its enemies, cousins' cousins' children who carry water for the enemies. It also periodically shows it believe in the need to scare the crap out of people who might later become its enemies by killing a whole bunch of them too.

Israel is also traditionally very fond of a crazy moral argument that goes something like this: if I have a legitimate aim in killing or apprehending some bad guy, and that bad guy does something that puts others in the way of the harm that falls from my attempts to kill or apprehend him, then since that bad guy is morally culpable for the harm that falls on the innocents, I am not morally culpable for that harm. Bad argument.

What is going on in Lebanon are more instances of two kinds of behavior that have been a pattern in Israeli history: collective punishment and estreme disregard for collateral damage to noncombattants. It's just getting a bit more attention now than it does when carried out against Palestinians. That's partly because Lebanon is more accessible to reporters; it's also partly because Lebanon has more friends in the US than do the Palestinians.

"ugly sentiments pregnant with antipathy toward the only democratic state in the Middle East."

And with these revealing words Richard Cohen becomes the latest Bush supporter to develop selective amnesia about Democracy Boy's little ongoing experiment in Iraq.

What does the fighting with Hezbollah have to do with the Palestinians?

You're kidding, right?

As much as you are ashamed of the Democratic Party, bluebell, I am delighted that its leaders pay no heed whatsoever to people like you, people who will blithely allow another Holocaust to occur from the comfort of your safe salon while you mouth platitudes designed to comfort your conscience that bear no relationship to the facts.

Get the hell out of my Party, bluebell. I and millions of other sensible Democrats don't want you and your ilk in it because your unwitting aid and comfort to terrorists only helps win more elections for Bush, Cheney, Rove and their friends.

VIVA THE LOBBY! AM YISROAEL CHAI!

Sage addresses Bluebell

people like you... people who will blithely allow another Holocaust ...you and your ilk ...your unwitting aid and comfort to terrorists

Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you the sound of one hand clapping. A round of applause for Sage please.

“I think, therefore I am” Descartes

“I kill, because I can” US and Israeli foreign policy

Random thoughts:

One of the most shocking realizations for is me is how intellectualism and academia becomes co-opted by power and wealth. Harvard (et.al) $25 billion and not a single obvious contribution to edifying, helping, etc. Just more MBA’s for private equity firms, and more money for Harvard.

Religious institutions suck. Here we are in the 21st century, huge advances in science (including the unfortunate and growing ability to eliminate life though bombs and biological mutations). Yet, tribalism, fostered by male dominated religious hierarchies, seems to be gaining in influence.

Testosterone is likely to destroy humanity. The Cheney/ Bush war doctrine seems to be some unchecked, destructive, collective male psychotic breakdown. Women are much wiser than men and should be allowed to call the shots for the sake of our children.

So Todd how many dead Israelis are you willing to accept from the safety of New York?

So Daniel how many dead Lebanese civilians are you willing to accept to ensure the safety of Israel? A thousand? A million?

I want Israelis to be safe, but I don't accept that these actions were necessary for Israel's survival, and in any case proportionality is more important than survival. There are limits on what one is allowed to do in order to survive.

The U.S., Israel and Britain are dominant in this crisis, and could end it tomorrow. Demanding that Hezbollah disarm in the wake of Israeli attacks on Lebanon is the same as telling the U.S. that it should disarm its military before negotiations begin. Therefore, those who are dominant continue the killing because they believe they can get away with it, not because it is right to do so.

All that Hezbollah is capable of doing is remind Israel that while it knows it cannot win, it can make certain that Israeli feels some pain for the wanton killing of Arabs.

The 350-400 killed Lebonese civilians is only the tip of the iceberg. With much of the infrastructure destroyed there will be thousands of deaths that follow.

This situation could be compared to Goliath telling David to put down the sling-shot and fight like a man. Arabs have nothing upon which to base a trust of the West. Therefore, fear of complete devastation is the motivation for a much weaker foe to continue fighting in the face of overwhelming odds against it.

How can a cease-fire take place when the premise upon which the cease-fire is demanded is dishonest?

I hope Israel kills as many Arabs and Iranians as it has to in order to protect its people. There is not a damn thing you or anybody else on this blog can do about it, thank G-d.

VIVA THE LOBBY! AM YISROAEL CHAI!

Women are much wiser than men and should be allowed to call the shots for the sake of our children.

I do believe that Professor Gitlin's post continues a post-modern tendency that asks Israelis to be at greater risk than anyone else.

But Daniel, the facts suggest rather strongly that Lebanese civilians are now at far greater risk than Israeli. Deaths of Lebanese exceed deaths of Israelis by a ratio of 10 to 1. Given that the population of Lebanon is smaller than the population of Israel, the risk to Lebanese civilians is even greater than that ratio suggests.

It is certainly did the people of Rwanda and is now doing the people of Dafur a lot of good to wait for the good people of the world.

Taylor I believe you believe in the myth that by showing restraint the people of Israel will be protected. That is fanciful. War is not a game, it not about what the hypocrits of the world have to say. It is about putting Hezbollah on its heals and making sure any other would be murders of Israelis know there is a consequence for their actions.

Taylor I think you suffer ss so many on the American left from the notion that there are no real world consequences to actions. No one con predict the future but when this war is over Israel is likely to be safer as will Lebanon.

By the way there is no blitzkrieg going on. According to a military analysis I have seen the air attack is doing a lot less permanent damage to Lebanon than the hysteria would lead you to believe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

What is out of proportion? The Hezbo's are shooting anti-personnel rockets at Isreali cities having no military value. The Isreali's are bombing resupply routes and Hezbo targets.

The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir

No, I'm not optimistic at all about this situation. This isn't just about land, this is about religious beliefs, resources, humiliation, punishment, revenge - I see two solutions, just as Americans had two solutions in our wars with Native Americans - complete attrition or overwhelming defeat.

 Arthur Dent wrote

The only way to ensure that babies don't die in their cribs and old people in the streets is to make the Lebanese or the Palestinians understand that if they, no matter how reluctantly, host those rockets, they will pay a very, very steep price

Possibly true. But to be intellectually respectable instead  of "will pay a very, very steep price "  he should write

"will have their babies die in their cribs and old people in the streets ".

The Israelis have long used "human shields" in the Palestinian Territories. The IDF routinely takes Palestinians hostage and uses them as cover during operations in the West Bank and Gaza over the course of many years.

The "proportionality" argument is really a red herring. Basically, this is the result of Isreali occupation of Shaba Farms, which they have occupied since they withdrew from Lebanon. It's Lebanese territory, Syria no longer claims it, and that is the source of the border war that's been going on, in which the Israelis and Hezbollah routinely kidnap each other's soldiers. This time, Israel used it as an excuse to destroy the entire country of Lebanon. There is no "proportionality" that is justifiable in this case, and many Israelis know it.

What exactly is being defended? Is it the citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state?

By Oren Ben-Dor

Silence about the immoral core of Israeli statehood makes us all complicit in breeding the terrorism that threatens a catastrophe which could tear the world apart.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14210.htm

Dissent grows in Israel over Lebanon
Ian Black in Jerusalem
Wednesday July 26, 2006

Guardian

The government of the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is facing a barrage of criticism over its handling of the war in Lebanon, with questions being raised about the decision to attack Hizbullah, mounting military losses, continuing missile strikes on northern Israel, and disquiet about Lebanese civilian casualties.

Moshe Arens, a hawkish former Likud defence minister, issued a stark warning that Hizbullah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, could emerge from the conflict undefeated. "This will be a disaster for Israel," he told the Ha'aretz newspaper. "Nasrallah will be seen as someone who fired thousands of katyushas at Israeli communities for weeks and came out unscathed."

The original objective of "breaking Hizbullah" has been quietly watered down to "weakening Hizbullah". Mr Olmert's sudden agreement to the deployment of a multinational force on the border reflects reluctant recognition that Israel cannot itself disarm the Lebanese militia and needs a foreign buffer.

International focus on civilian deaths in Lebanon - roughly 10 times the number suffered by Israel - has badly undermined Israel's case abroad, despite the unwavering support of the US. Its own propaganda efforts have been poor and uncoordinated.

Nahum Barnea, the country's leading political commentator, warned earlier this week that the Israeli public had exaggerated expectations of what might emerge from this crisis. "Israel is like the guy who promised to jump off the big top at the circus but freezes the moment he gets up there. 'Why isn't he jumping,' the spectators ask. 'No question of jumping,' the guy replies. 'The only question is how I can get down'."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1830632,00.html

The quote was from Richard Cohen, not me. My position was clearly stated that the only way is for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank - now.

Hezbollah did not start attacking civilian targets in this round. Perhaps they would resort to it even if Israel refrained from such targetting, but we cannot know that. Apart from morality etc., refraining from unnecessary savagery is common sense in a conflict without a "final solution".

Hezbollah showed a certain restraint in starting in a purely military manner. Hezbollah allies showed a certain restrain by restricting the arsenal of Hezbollah to rather obsolete and ineffective weapons, with very few exceptions.

The single exception is rather ominous --- apparently, Iranians produce very decent anti-ship rockets, so they can wreck untold havoc in the Gulf if attacked. Apart from that, Israel adversaries may up the antes in the next round. The self-restraints showed now indicate to me that diplomacy could achieve something if Israel and USA wwere to abandon the demands of unilateral concessions.

I think that the current escalation, however unadvisable, is a part of a larger and more ominous picture. USA, and thus Israel, refuses to negotiate with adversaries directly, and indirectly it merely passes demands of unilateral concessions. This is a rather dangerous approach, to put it mildly.

Report from B'TSELEM: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

20 July 2006: Israeli Soldiers use civilians as Human Shields in Beit Hanun

B'Tselem's initial investigation indicates that, during an incursion by Israeli forces into Beit Hanun, in the northern Gaza Strip, on 17 July 2006, soldiers seized control of two buildings in the town and used residents as human shields.

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments.

B'Tselem has demanded that the Judge Advocate General immediately order a Military Police investigation into the matter and prosecute the soldiers responsible for the action.

Full Report at: http://www.btselem.org/English/

The single exception is rather ominous --- apparently, Iranians produce very decent anti-ship rockets, so they can wreck untold havoc in the Gulf if attacked.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

How much is the existence of these defenses pertinentif the missiles exist which would require these defense systems in the first place? Do any of the tankers carry these defense systems? Could escort ships protect the tankers? If so, would that not require that the escorts travel in close proximity to the Tankers? Are there enough escorts with all the right missile defense systems to protect all the tanker traffic? Wouldn’t the tankers quit using the Gulf anyway because their insurance would not cover them if open hostilities broke out?

Howardd

You tone and demands are really getting obnoxious. As is your attitude in explaining away Israel's efforts to defend itself. Citing pieces of paper are all well in good but they do not alone stop people from getting killed Rather than attempt to further engage you in reasonable dicussion I will use this opportunitey to just read your posts.

The evidence of your posts belies your denials that you are not hostile. I see no reason to waste my time or eneergy further. Daniel A. Greenbaum

Sage says:

"I hope Israel kills as many Arabs and Iranians as it has to in order to protect its people."

I don't think these comments should be censored with zero ratings. It's important to know that some people really think like this.

I think you suffer as so many on the American left from the notion that there are no real world consequences to actions. No one can predict the future but when this war is over Israel is likely to be safer as will Lebanon.

Daniel -- I think it's becoming clear from various reports, including a professor at American U. in Beirut quoted in the other Gitlin thread, that Israel is losing key support because of her behavior even as Hezbollah is picking up some points. So I think a reality check is something you may want to indulge in. The best start would be to get reports from British and European papers. America doesn't just have a dog in this fight, it turns out to be the dog in the fight. An undisciplined and increasingly unloved dog.

Well, I may have some doubts about my party, but I don't have the confusion you appear to have over what exactly is your country?

The defence of tankers described by Howard does not have to be effective.

Number one, the anti-ship missile used by Hezbollah was described as somewhat more modern. Number two, as Howard noted, tankers are vulnerable to multiple hits -- so the question would be how many missiles Iran can launch. Number three, Iran can indeed suffer from retaliation, but the point is that if we launch a bombing campaign against Iran, Iran can painfully retaliate --- and if we go all the way, they can go all the way too and stop the traffic in Strait of Hormuz. Number four, "destroying launching pads" may work against mine launching (unclear to me, but they have more restricted placement) but we have seen how effective Israeli bombardment was against Hezbollah. Number five, during war with Iraq, Iran was not particularly motivated to escalate the confrontation --- and neither were we.

I understand that it is hard to SINK a supertanker, but is it hard to put it on fire or otherwise disable it? Or is it hard to target the rear of the tanker, with the engine and the crew?

My theory (not too original) is that the ability of closing the Strait is for Iran as good, if not better, than nukes -- mutually assured economic destruction. It is actually much more useful than nukes because there are high political barrier for the use of nukes, while strifing tankers --- not nearly as much.

If I were a decision maker there, I would devote a lot of energy and money to obtain such capability. I would riddle mountains near the Strait with thousands of holes, each potentially hiding a rocket launcher, made a lot of tunnels, bunkers etc. Made it hard to invade with ground troops and to eliminate the launching site. Improve guidance electronics. I would spend several billion dollars on such programs.

Given that, Iranian nuclear program would have one purpose only: to annoy US and score domestic political points. It is really scary when BOTH sides have such priorities.