Is Another Holocaust Inevitable?
You know you are in trouble when it takes former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to dispel some of the gloom about the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel. But that is what happened at last month's Herzliya Conference on National Security. The annual conference has become the most prestigious venue in Israel for discussions of Israeli and global security by high-ranking political leaders, military figures and academics.
Netanyahu said: "I am optimistic, and my optimism is not baseless, because I understand our capabilities….”
His remarks (surprising coming from someone who regularly utilizes apocalyptic rhetoric about Iran) were a dose of reality in a political scene that has become increasingly dominated by gloom-and-doom fantasies replete with references to the imminence of a second Holocaust.
The fear, of course, is that Iran is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and will, if in possession of them, use them almost immediately to destroy Israel.
Netanyahu's statement was a reminder that Israel is far from helpless. It is a strong military power and, although he would not say this in so many words, reportedly has 200 atomic weapons of its own.
A nuclear attack on Israel by anyone would be suicidal and there are few, if any, governments in the world that would be willing to sacrifice millions of its own people to eliminate its enemies. (Those who argue that Iranians or Muslims in general – unlike Westerners -- would happily see their cities destroyed and their children consumed in a nuclear jihad are talking nonsense. The Mullahs themselves are calculating and dangerous; they are not suicidal. And it is they, not Pres. Ahmadinejad, who call the shots).
Nevertheless, Israel’s powerful deterrent is continually being downplayed by those who insist that the Israeli state is essentially as vulnerable as the Jews of Europe were in 1939.
Of the dozens of articles and speeches which express that fear, one stands out. It is by Benny Morris, one of Israel's top historians who made his name by exploring the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem. He is no right-winger (although he has moved rightward lately) which makes his words especially significant.
In an essay in the "Jerusalem Post," called "This Holocaust Will Be Different," Morris offers this prediction.
"One bright morning, in five or 10 years, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the Bomb, the mullahs in Qom will convene in secret session, under a portrait of the steely-eyed Ayatollah Khomeini, and give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by then in his second or third term, the go-ahead.
"The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites, including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases….
"With a country the size and shape of Israel (an elongated 20,000 square kilometers), probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel. “
For Morris, this horrific denouement is the result of policy choices that have already been made. "The buildup to the second holocaust (which, incidentally, in the end, will probably claim roughly the same number of lives as the first) has seen an international community fragmented and driven by separate, selfish appetites - Russia and China obsessed with Muslim markets; France with Arab oil - and the United States driven by the debacle in Iraq into a deep isolationism. Iran has been left free to pursue its nuclear destiny and Israel and Iran to face off alone."
The most distressing part of Morris's analysis (or prophecy) is its utter fatalism. “America will do nothing. Iran will get the bomb. Iran will use it on Israel. Israel will be destroyed. It's all inevitable.”
He does not even propose ways for Israel to avert this catastrophe.
Like most of the gloom-and-doom school, Morris believes that the only thing motivating Iranian policy is the desire to eliminate Israel. But Iran’s dangerous game of nuclear brinksmanship is about much more than Israel. In fact, it is primarily about the United States. That is why many believe that negotiations would be productive. In negotiations with the United States, Iran can demand recognition and security guarantees from Washington while we can demand an end to nuclear bomb development, an end to their meddling in Iraq, an end to support of Hezbollah and endorsement of negotiations as a means to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This is why American politicians are not jumping on the war-is-the-only-option bandwagon. As former Senator John Edwards recommended in his speech at Herzliyah. "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." We “need to support direct engagement with the Iranians….It is a mistake strategically to avoid engagement with Iran."
Or as Sen. Hillary Clinton says: “We have to keep all options on the table, including being ready to talk directly to Iranians should the right opportunity present itself. Direct talks, if they do nothing else, lets you assess who's making the decisions -- what their stated and unstated goals might be. And willingness to talk sends two very important messages. First, to the Iranian people, that our quarrel is with their leaders, not with them; and second, to the international community, that we are pursuing every available peaceful avenue to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.”
But the gloom and doomers disagree. Moderate Israeli writers Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren wrote, in a story in last week’s New Republic that “negotiations between the West and Iran….would be the worst of all options.” Why? Because the timing is wrong. “The time to have negotiated with Iran…was immediately after the initial U.S. triumph in Iraq, not now, when the United States is losing the war. Under these circumstances, negotiations would only buy the regime time to continue its nuclear program.”
For me, the most offensive aspect of the gloom-and-doom scenario is how antithetical that analysis is to the fundamental tenets of Zionism. The purpose of Zionism was to establish a strong sanctuary for Jews in the historic homeland. That sanctuary exists. Israel is, according to the analysts, the 4th strongest military power in the world and it is a nuclear power.
Pretending that Israel's situation in 2007 is like that of the Jews of Europe in 1939 is absurd and a desecration of the memory of the Six Million. Would anyone argue that the Holocaust would have taken place if Polish Jews had both nuclear weapons and a way to deliver them to Berlin? Of course not.
It was Jewish powerlessness that made the Holocaust possible, powerlessness that ended following Israel's establishment, the advent of the Israel Defense Forces and the development of Israel's nuclear deterrent.
If the existence of a militarily strong nuclear Israel, a nation 6 million strong, with an army second to none, has left Jews in as precarious a situation as 60 years ago, then Zionism was a failure and the existence of Israel is fundamentally worthless.
As a lifelong Zionist, I obviously do not accept that premise. Having come of age following the Six Day War, I simply cannot buy into the idea that Israel cannot accomplish what it needs to in order to secure its survival. Those who argue otherwise have either given up on Israel or are trying to scare either their fellow Israelis or Americans into a military strike at Iran before all other options have been tried.
Enough is enough. If we have learned anything from the Iraq war or the summer war on Israel’s northern border, it should be that wars, no matter what the intention of their architects, have unintended consequences and sometimes unimaginable ones.
Those who hold out the terrifying image of Israel reduced to dust by Iran as a means to produce a willy-nilly rush to war could, perversely, be setting the scene for the catastrophe they most fear.
The gift of prophecy can be a wonderful thing if it helps avert disaster. However, the ritualistic invoking of the Holocaust, the suggestion that Israel is militarily helpless, and self-fulfilling prophecies of doom, are deeply offensive -- except of course to one Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Can’t you just see him as he reads Benny Morris, the Herzliyah transcripts, and the New Republic cover story? I can. And he’s laughing.
Comments (200)
It doesn't matter in the least what Iranians or Muslims in general think. What matters is the thoughts of those with a finger on the button. As we all have seen again and again that there plenty of folks that hate the Isrealis more than they love their children. But the really scary (at least to me) thought is there are those that see those killed in an Isreali counter strike as getting first class tickets to paradise. In other words, not a horror to be avoided, but an outcome to sought with all available means.
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
February 2, 2007 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this post. The only thing that will "save" Israel is for the US to treat it like any other country, not like its pet.
February 2, 2007 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see no evidence that the Mullahs are suicidal. The idea that a nation, at its high point in power and influence (thanks to the Iraq war) would willingly self-destruct is absurd.
Do you think Hitler would have initiated the Holocaust if Germany would have been destroyed by the Jews? Unless you say yes, then you are arguing that Iranians are some primitive life form even lower than the Nazis. Maybe you are.
February 2, 2007 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC isn't going to be happy.
February 2, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have that pet thing backwards. Isreal treats us like a pet rottweiler
February 2, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary spoke at AIPAC in Manhattan yesterday. They loved her hardline rhetoric on Israel but when she talked about negotiating with Iran, the room went deadly still.
These people want war. Eventually Hillary and the other Dems will realize that there is no way to court the war lobby's favor without betraying everything they believe in.
February 2, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And meanwhile, back in the USA, the dominionists and theonomists, aka the "white-bread Christians," are seeking control of the military apparatus for their own "ends." Not a happy confluence of events.
-I. S. Skivar
February 2, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they want war, they are sitting fat and happy in America. If America goes to war against Iran on behalf of Israel, we will be smashed to our knees economically, at least, within five to seven years.
February 2, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think psychologists call this "transfer" - seeing in others what you see in yourself.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/04/10/foreign/GCAUSE.HTMFebruary 2, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
All we are waiting for is another terror event, real or staged. My favorite scenario is an 'accidental detonation' (or so it would be billed-- "Oh my God, the terrorists have nukes!") of a low-yield nuke along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, but even a relatively minor attack in the US might be sufficient to silence the American people into accepting an enlarged, Total War On Terror. And there's no way we can stop a real attack, or figure out the truth behind a faked one, until too late.
And today's news has it that Iranians have been captured in the West Bank. What a coinkydink.
February 2, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has been judged to be "just 5 years away" from nukes for the last ,a href="http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8367e0e9-149b-4a1e-9c74-1a979bd3e325&k=72529">25 years.
If anyone has any reason to worry about "existential threats" by WMDs, its the Iranians. Iran was the victim of WMDs - chemical weapons provided to Saddam by the US during the Iran-Iraq war. It is the Iranians who are facing nuclear-armed states all around - including the US which has blatantly and overtly threatened Iran with nuclear first-strikes already (in violation of international law) as well as Israel which has proven to be aggressive and expansionist & refuses to give up the same weapons it accuses Iran of having.
One of the problems is that Israel defines obtaining the technology for a nuclear fuel cycle as being the same thing as "getting the bomb".
By this definition, both Brazil and Argentina now have "obtained the bomb" and Egypt has announced that it will soon have it (and along with South Koream, was caught conducting secret undeclared nuclear experiments) and Japan and the Netherlands also have it. In fact, more and more nations will be seeking "the bomb"
(A New Global Nuclear Order By Alissa J. Rubin LA Times Oct 15 2006)There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran. Iran's nuclear program is economically justified, which is why the US supported it. Nuclear power is the energy source of the future and no nation will simply give it up. Iran has allowed more inspection than legally required, and has offered several compromises on the nuclear issue which would address any legitimate concern for weapons proliferation - and all of its offers of compromise have been ignored by the Bush administration.
We are left with the only reasonable conclusion: that nuclear issue is a pretext for a war whose real purpose, far from saving Israel from a Holocaust, is to establish and promote Israels ambitions in the region by removing first Iraq, and now Iran as a strategic competitor.
February 2, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything Iran has done is allowed under the NNPT. They have indeed violated the treaty's disclosure requirements, but one need only consider Iraq's experience at the hands of the Israelis understand their reticence to disclose details and locations. And there is, as you say zero, evidence that they are trying to build a bomb, or that they have violated the substantive provisions of the treaty in any significant way.
And of course, any Iraqi disclosure of its enrichment program is far more than the world has ever gotten from Israel about its nuclear program.
February 2, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if this guy has been out partying with LTG Boykin.
February 2, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you see evidence that they seek to spend eternity in paradise and believe martyrdom is a good path to that end?
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
February 2, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iraq invasion was also not about gaining oil for the US market. That could always be done by purchasing oil on the open market. But, the real $$$$ to be made by invading Iraq were those supplied by the US Treasury, and those went to Haliburton, the US contractors in Iraq, and, in the future, the US oil companies who hope to gain exclusive rights to develop the Iraq oil fields, taking a substantial cut off the top of the income from those oil fields.
I would be astonished if the Bush administration is waving swords at Iran for reasons that differ much from their reasons for invading Iraq. Again, Israel does not enter the mind of the "decison maker". The only place where Israel affects the Bush administration and the Congress's thinking is when the checkbooks come out - the checkbooks of AIPAC.
Hoppy in Sacramento
February 2, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point in the timeline, the only thing that will save Israel from itself is for the reality-based majority of American Jews to get organized, and loud, and quickly.
February 2, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran breached their Safeguards agreement, not the Treaty itself, by failing to report some nuclear activities. THe IAEA has explicitly stated that all fissile material has been accounted for in Iran and none have been diverted for weapons. Iran has also allowed all the inspections it is legally required to permit, plus more.
Iran breached her safeguards by failing to inform the IAEA of the importation of uranium from China and obtaining centrifuge technology from Pakistan, among other things (Legally, Iran was under no obligation to report the construction of the sites at Natanz and Arak in the first place, despite all the talk about "discovery" of these the "clandestine" sites.) Several other countries have been caught doing far worse- such as Egypt and S. Korea - but you don't hear about them much.
In any case, the IAEA stated that the undeclared activities did not have any relationship to a weapons program. Iran attempted to obtain this technology - to which it was entitled to have - overtly by entering into contracts with several other countries, only for the US to sabotage the agreements. That's when Iran resorted to clandestine means to obtain the technology.
But even then, the fact that Iran was planing to develop a nuclear enrichment program was never a secret, and the Iranians had announced it on their radio, and UN inspectors had visited Iran's uranium mines in 1992.
The only damning "evidence" against Iran consists of the inference of what Iran "could do" with enrichment technology at some indefinite point in the future. According to that argument, no one should have any technology because they "could" use it to make bombs one day. No matter how much inspections Iran allows, there is no way for the IAEA to "prove" that Iran could not do theoretically something in the indefinite future. No one can.
February 2, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fatalism of many Israeli/Jewish intellectuals concerns me. Right now the nuclear threat in the Middle-East is posed by Israel. Looking back on this past summer and Israel's response to Hezbollah's taking of 3 soldiers combined with this air of fatalism worries me. What would be Israel's response if a terrorist group detontes a radiological "dirty bomb" in either Tel Aviv or Haifa? Are they going to feel compelled to respond "in kind" to whoever they feel is "responsible" for allowing the attack to happen deploying one or multiple nuclear weapons? Yep...fatalism scares the ever loving shit out of me.
That being said Iran under no circumstances should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. MJ makes the point that the mullahs might be hardline but not suicidal. I agree, but that isn't the problem. The current mullahs aren't going to be around forever. Everybody eventually passes on and there will be new mullahs calling the shots eventually. And with a high level of respect for "Martyrdom" by some followers of Islam who is to say that at some point that one or a group of them will become suicidal and launch a nuclear attack against the infidels in the name of Allah, Muhammed and Islam.
Fatalism does exist on both sides and the longer the Israeli-Palestinian issues remain unresolved that fatalism will be nurtured and will continue to grow...and then the prophesies will become self-fufilling.
February 2, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Gulf, the Saudis both have more to worry about from Iran and have less to defend themselves with than does Israel. Every Israeli I have heard discuss Iran acknowledges its great danger to Israel, believes the U.S. will not adequately deal with Iran and is fairly confident that Israel can deal with Iran on its own.
I am constantly amazed at the need of some to focus on Israel as the puppetmaster of the U.S. Likely a very dangerous miscalculation.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 2, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
True when when I say that the nuclear issue is a pretext for war, I don't mean a pretext just for a US policy of war. I mean a prextext for the Israeli policy of war, a policy that AIPAC then foists on the US through the Israel lobby and Israeli agents of influence (aka the NeoCons.) That's what they did in the case of Iraq too. What benefits Halliburton got out of it was just icing on the cake.
What we've seen is that the entire US governmental system - from the WHite House to the Pentagon to the Congress - has been fundamentally infiltrated by these agents of Israel who can "stovepipe" intelligence and freely use the US media as their loudspeaker system in order to march this country into a war, and every check-and-balance has failed to control them. They get what they want, and Israel wants to fight Iran to the last US Marine.
February 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't "hate the Israelis more than they love their children". They can't offer a decent life to their children, and under the circumstances, seeing their child die fighting against what they see as the oppressive power with its boot on their necks seems like an acceptable option.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 2, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iranians were legally entitled to use chemical weapons against Iraq when they were attacked by chemical weapons - but they didn't.
Considering that we spent 60 years planning various way to "win" a global nuclear catastrophe, and almost came close a couple of times of launching the missiles, and we're making "user friendly" and "mini-nukes" to be used on a "first strike" basis in violation of international law and our explicit prior promises, I don't think the Iranians are the ones the world has to worry about. How many nukes do WE have lying around? Why assume we're any more responsible? Who is actually threatening whom with nuclear weapons?
February 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Arab states of the Persian Gulf, along with the entire Islamic Conference Organization, and the whole Non-Aligned Movement, have explicitly supported Iran.
That's a majority of the nations of the world.
As for the "puppetmaster" analogy - when our leaders go and pander to a foreign country and swear up and down that the foreign country's security is foremest to them, what do you call it?
February 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I wasn't clear (or too nuanced) with my comments hass. I agree that right now Iran isn't the country to worry about in terms of being a nuclear threat. I agree with MJ's take on the "sanity" of the current mullahs. They (Iran) could become a threat in the future if the wrong people with wrong ideologies come into power. So I fully oppose the Iranians being allowed to build "the bomb".
And of course with the current administration, with their views, in place we represent a nuclear threat too...
February 2, 2007 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you see evidence that they seek to spend eternity in paradise and believe martyrdom is a good path to that end?
I see no evidence of that. If they wanted martyrdom, they could easily have attained it in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. They are happy to send others to be martyrs if it helps keep the public on their side, but put their own asses on the line? No.
February 2, 2007 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear to me that many of the right-wing Israelis are completely paranoid and see anti-Semitism as the major force for almost everything that happens in the world. And paradoxically, as the Holocaust recedes further into the past, this paranoia only seems to get worse.
What are the dynamics causing this, and is there any way to change them?
February 2, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've mixed feelings about this response. Is AIPAC powerful? Yes...I mean is there a "pro-Persia" PAC in D.C.? Of course not.
Yet I think the word "infiltrated" might be pushing it though.
February 2, 2007 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, well, yes. They will feel compelled to respond, and they should do so. You're talking about an attack with a freaking dirty nuclear weapon, here.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 2, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you think that if a radiological suitcase type "dirty bomb", that might kill anywhere from 100-1,000 Israelis (at absolute most!!!), is used against Israel it deserves a full nuclear response of detonating a warhead over Damascus or Tehran that will result in anywhere from 100,000 - 300,000 deaths in either case?
February 2, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most of our wars have included strategic missteps based on the decision makers basing their war plan on certain false assumptions of a previous war.
You seem to be assuming some WWII conditions are valid today but ignoring others.
There are a few false assumptions in the 1930's that helped lead to WWII and the Holocaust.
1) Germany has very limited territorial goals. It would be crazy to imagine that they really intend to make good on their Statements of a philosophy that will span the globe.
2)They are roughing up the Jews, but they don't really intend to go beyond that. That would be crazy to think they believe their own stated goals.
3)Hitler does not control the whole government now, so even if he believed this stuff he doesn't have the power to act on it. We are safe now, we have time to talk.
4)If we negotiate with Hitler and we get a piece of paper and wave it over our head, then Hitler won't do anything. We are safe right now, we have time to talk.
5)Our technology (UK and US) and the ocean has always protected us and will continue to protect us. We are safe now, we have time to talk.
These assumptions were not only wrong, but the fact that we held these beliefs encouraged Hitler.
Lets consider these regarding the Stateless Islamofascists as well as the Statebound radicals and the gray area between the two.
1) Iran and it's Shia's might be filtering through to Iraq and "temporarily" in Lebanon, but if the west behaved in this way or that they would be satisfied and their territorial desires would be satiated. Their calls for Global Jihad is just talk, they don't really believe that...False for AQ and Iran.
2)Israel is currently being roughed up, but these people don't really want to kill all of them, that would be crazy. They don't really believe their own rhetoric.
3)Many have pointed out that Ahmedinijahd doesn't control the whole government. Some point to Ayatollah Yasdi losing in last months election as proof that He can not win total control for now. But Hitler created chaos and outmaneuvered his rivals. The burning of the Reichstag and the manipulation of Hindenburg. If Yasdi and other Hojjatieh Ayatollahs team up with the President, he has total control. How confident can we be that armed with Nukes, he won't be able to pull off that coup in 3 years, 5, 15. We might be safe for now, but if Yasdi cronies get in, they have the Nukes and Yes, they do believe this stuff.
4)What would a piece of paper from Iran do for us? It didn't work with Hitler and what have we learned after 15 years of Saddam. He manipulated the UNSCRs and agreements to his advantage, because he had the time to do it. Our time to remain engaged is limited. They have Youth and will and we have neither. Our society has a "clicker" attention span and if a conflict is not wrapped up by the end of primetime and the guy gets the girl, we get upset. They can wait us out.
5)Our technology is worthless if we don't have the will to use it. OBL and Ahmedinijahd openly state that we are weak willed and do not have the stomach to fight them for long, regardless of the threat that they pose. If Israel or the US thinks that our weaponry is a guarentee to protect us forever, then we are doomed. 911 and other attacks have proved that oceans and technology can't protect us without the will to fight back.
Mr. Rosenberg, if you see no evidence that the Mullahs are suicidal then you are imagining that they are monolithic. There are Ayatollahs, like Ahmedinijahd's mentor Mesbah Yasdi that agree with his escatological final solution. Some would have thought the Nazis were on a suicide mission just because our desire to live and let live is assumed to be their world view also. Hitler believed he could achieve what he considered the highest heights and live through it. He knew their was a risk and he took the risk and lost.
The Islamo fascists and the Hojjatieh are not all suicidal although some are, but they are willing to take risks that may kill a lot of people in order to fulfill their twisted view of the New Global Caliphate and the Apocalypse.
If a stateless Islamofascist could Nuke Israel, where does Israel retaliate, how is thier impressive "Power" and technology going to act as a deterrant. What if Ahmedinijahd really does believe what he flaps his gums about from the time he rolls out of bed, till the time he goes to sleep. If he believes it and leaves Tehran for a few days sits in a bunker and lets loose on Israel, he can survive it, so does that make him suicidal? Who comes after him? Does the US invade a nuclear armed Iran? He has nukes right. Does the US launch ICBMs and risk setting off a nuclear chain reaction with other members of the atomic club?
Israel is not powerless. But like Gulliver, their power is tethered by a thousand smaller threads of pressure from powers that surround them and from within. Do they have the will to defend themselves?
How can one believe that a finite amount of oil will eventually run out, but not believe that the nuclear club will grow? It is inevitable. Groups like the Nazis and the Islamofascists will be with us in the future. Like the scorpion on the back of the turtle, the Nazis did not want to live and let live. Their desire to take down their neighbor supercedes their aversion to the risk of their own destruction.
When a group like this acquires the Ultimate weapons, the rules of the cold war, the rules of WWII, and the rules that applied in the six day war are out the window. We are in a new struggle. They DO mean what they say. We might be somewhat safe now, but we don't have time, they do. They don't have a limited appetite, they want it ALL. And finally, if as a boy someone had told me that a rising nuclear power in the middle east would come along and his hero and idol was Adolf Hitler and his favorite past time is debunking the holocaust and promising that it is at his religious core that he follow through on killing all the Jews, I would have asked, what is the world doing to stop him. The answer? Waiting. Wanting to talk to him. Hoping to give him things to bargain.
If we argued the same way back in 1939, how many people would argue that Britain threatening war if Poland is invaded is initiating a war of choice that did not threaten its own territory.
It is true war has unintended consequences. What the British decided in 1939 was that there are times in history where action and inaction are both almost too scary to face. But face it they did.
Action might be scary, but fooling ourselves into thinking that inaction has nothing to fear is stepping onto train from which there is no return.
The Islamofascists want to have it all and you are in their way.
He has already said, no shiney trinkets from the west will deter him. He believes like his idol what he says. The Jews go first. All of them. I believe them. ...and yes, they are crazy.
February 2, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this over who has the better imaginary friend.
February 2, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine said:
This statement seems quite correct, but one has to wonder whether we hasten the rise to power of the most extreme elements by treating Iran as an international pariah and refusing to negotiate.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul ValeryFebruary 2, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allies
February 2, 2007 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its true, the current Religious leadership will not remain forever. If my children live for another 80 years, what are the odds of Radicals obtaining a nuclear device during that time? Pretty high. I don't like the odds.
February 2, 2007 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Officer Friendly at the fifth precinct carries a gun. He must be a threat to become a serial killer.
February 2, 2007 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a "pro-persia" lobby. It opposes the current Iranian government.
February 2, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Yup, that's what it gets boiled down to, on all sides.
February 2, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israels neighbors laid down their arms, is there any doubt that Israel would have no reason to invade nor would they. If Israel laid down its arms, is there any doubt that they would all be dead by nightfall of the following day.
Whether Israel has disclosed its nuclear enrichment programs is of much less concern to those who want peace in the world than those who want war.
February 2, 2007 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have aided in creating the extremism in the Iranian government wordie. A long time ago (maybe up to 15 years) we should have re-engaged Tehran. We have continually treated them as a pariah which reinforces the extremist message of "the West is not to be trusted". Iran has long wanted to to normalize relations with the West and we refuse. Part of the reason is our 2 closest allies in the region, Israel and the Saudis for different reasons, do not want us to do it. The Iranians (due to their resources, large population and technological advances) will become the regions premier "superpower" if allowed to. At some point Iran will have to be dealt with and absolutely not in a military sense either. They will make it impossible for us not to deal with them.
February 2, 2007 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're talking about the MEK (also known as the MKO or the People's Mojahedin or National Council of Resistance of Iran etc), these are Marxist-Islamist terrorists who were the most violent element in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, then had a falling out with Khomeini and ran off to Iraq, where they were supported by Saddam and actually fought against Iran during the Iran-IRaq war, yes they're around and do regularly lobby Congress despite the fact at least theoretically they're barred from such activities as they are on the same terrorist list as Al-Qaeda. However, the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington has decided to use them, and so people like Raymond Tanter of the pro-Israeli think tank Washington Institute for Near East Studies has been promoting them as have monsters like Ledeen and Gerecht.
There are other Iranian goups, like the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) but they are non-partisan.
Several Iranian pro-Peace groups have joined up to form Campaign Iran which is opposed to war and sanctions. It would be great if TPM actually invited one of these people to contribute instead of the same old has-beens and folks who have no real qualifications on Iran, don't speak the language, and have never actually set foot there. I suggest Dr Trita Parsi.
February 2, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong people with wrong ideologies can come into power...anywhere. See Bush.
February 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong people with wrong ideologies can come into power...anywhere. See Bush.
February 2, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Radicals where? In Iran or Israel or the US? How much more radical does the Bush administration have to get before it is recognized as a threat that far surpasses Iran, right now. Legalized torture, elimination of habeas corpus, rendition, pre-emptive nuclear war, "signing statemetns", invasions, total surveillance over the people, cluser bombs used on civilians... need I say more? The Iranians could only dream of having these powers & capabilities!
In fact, I predict if we all live long enough, aliens may invade earth. So, lets play it safe and nuke the moon today. Hey, it "could" happen!
February 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lot of allies which makes a lie out of the Bush administration's claim that Iran is "defying the world".
February 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are we going to get the money, and where will we get the troops?
For some reason people always seem to think that war is free.
February 2, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, we could have re-engaged them as few as three years ago, when they provided significant help in our Afghan operations, and expressed a willingness to have a wide-ranging series of discussions with the USA.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1115/p01s04-wome.htm
AND
The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media.These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003.
Flynt Leverett in http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php
February 2, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear I am no happier in the fact that Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, the US, the UK, France, etc. etc. etc. have "the bomb". It is human nature that SNAFU's eventually always happen. All of 'em should be dismantled as far as I am concerned. Their only purpose is to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a single attack...
February 2, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will someone please tell me what the evidence is that supports the idea that Iran is the giant ogre in this, as I see it, fairy-tale world we are living in?
Other than the rants of Iran's president who seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to the American president - popinjays strutting their stuff on the world stage - I can find nothing to support Iran's march to world domination. Thanks.
February 2, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trumpeted Anti-Semitism charges are a crutch (which allows Zionist to evade any self-criticism - the seige mentality writ large) and a convenient way of smearing critics whilst monopolizing victim-status. Its also a good way to lay a guilt trip on Europeans and Americans.
Read Prof. Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry
February 2, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where do you think we're getting the money right now? China, of course. They're the biggest purchaser of US Bonds.
February 2, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was Lebanonese I'd have plenty of doubts, I won't even mention the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
February 2, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you remember whenever there were Israeli casualties in any of its many wars, the comparison was frequently made (and I approximate here) "128 Israelis killed is equivalent to 6,400 American deaths, given Israel's small population of only 5 million."
Thus was laid the psychological groundwork for today's operative assumption, viz., that when the casualties are not skewed radically and even overwhelmingly in Israel's favor, a cosmic injustice has been done.
February 2, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, this era almost makes me nostalgic for MAD. Back then we all had school desks we could hide under...
February 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And do you think they're going to give us any more money? (Actually Japan holds more bonds than China.)
February 2, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have been making overtures to us, that have gone ignored, since Clinton's 2nd term. Our 2 closest allies in the region don't want us to talk to them and want to see Iran remain isolated. So Tehran does more and more provocative gestures trying to get our attention. And the current US administration is the wrong one for them to get any more provocative with. Our current leaders are as unpredictable (and maybe more so) as the Iranians are...
February 2, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deep down, Iran (and any other country's) reason for getting nuclear weapons is preventative. It's alot less likely that the US or anyone else is going to invade your country and co-op your oil, etc if you have nuclear capacity. Done!
February 2, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...pining for the good old days when all we had to worry about was The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Bev?
We used to joke about "the instructions" when we were kids. For us this is how it went:
1. Get under your desk
2. Put your head between your legs
3. Pucker up and kiss you ass goodbye...
February 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...I can find nothing to support Iran's march to world domination. Thanks...."
How about every other word that comes out of his mouth.
February 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And as Lewis Black pointed out, "they were wooden desks..."
February 2, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just to repeat again...no argument out of me. ;)
February 2, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just thought I would throw this in:
Made me kinda want to investigate further:
All rightie then... slight conflict of interest possibly...? Maybe why Pelosi wanted Murtha rather than Hoyer?
February 2, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we simply discount what they SAY and how they ACT and project our own sense of values on them … isn't that exactly how G. W. and Co. got us into this in the first place (by assuming democracy is a first principle)?
And I suppose the routine sacrificing of children in their war against Iraq, as they sent they sent them through the mine fields with the "keys to heaven" around their necks causes Mr. Rosenberg no pause in his evaluation.
That's why I love TPM - it's proof that the right and the left are both cultural imperialists in theory even if not in practivce.
February 2, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people think peace and freedom is free
February 2, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was Gingrich last year about the Israeli's killed by Hezbollah Missiles. The 1,000 Lebanese killed by Israel would be the equivalent of 100,000 American deaths, not to mention the Lebanese still being victimized by the cluster bombs that Israel dropped in the last 48 hours or the mines that they left in Lebanon years ago and refuse to give a map for.
Or what we're responsible for in Iraq. 600,000 Iraqis would be the equivalent of 6,000,000 dead Americans.
February 2, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are...that's why warmongers despise them so much, there's no money in it.
Nice deflection though it was, you still haven't answered the question - how do you propose we pay for another war?
February 2, 2007 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember being angry when Reagan said we would compensated the INNOCENT - as though not all of the dead were innocent - who died when the Vincennes shot down that Iranian airline on a scheduled flight.
Surely, Iran is more sinned against than sinning vis-a-vis the US. The US conspired with the British to force that God-awful Shah down their throats and arm him against his own people for 25 years. I believe there was even a move to give the Shah nuclear technology.
February 2, 2007 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fear, of course, is that Iran is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and will, if in possession of them, use them almost immediately to destroy Israel.
Since such an attack would bring massive retaliation from the United States, and since even a successful surprise strike against Israel would not save Iran from an Israeli counterstrike, this assessment is based on the idea that the Iranian regime is a crazy suicide cult, and that the country is just one big suicide bomber waiting to set off its explosives belt
But in fact, there is little evidence of this. The regime, while theocratic and given on occasion to some wild rhetoric, seems to behave like a state: it grows its economy, it manages its accounts, it invests heavily in educationg its people, it engages in long term public works projects, and it plans for the future in many other ways. Iran shows every sign of a government and state that plans to be a around for a very long time. There really is very little reason to think that collective suicide is on the Iranian agenda.
But it is precisely in order to prevent any deeper radicalization, and to forestall the possibility of accidents in military calculation, that talks with Iran are so necessary. Negotiations with Iran would help to end its partial isolation, and would incorporate the country further into the global state system. And preventing weapons development is more likely to be accomplished through verifiable treaty arrangements than through an unsustainable and wildly destabilizing series of preventive assaults, harebrained revolutionary regime change schemes, or sanctions in perpetuity.
If Israel is so worried about this sort of attack, it should consider the effect of a strike on Iran on the political health of the region and on its own security. It should consider the effect of the mass proliferation of bitter and implacable enemies such an attack would spur.
Israel is a very small country in territorial terms, has a memory of genocidal actions against its people and is justifiably scared of nuclear attack from some enemy. But frankly, the whole country is also more than a little nuts.
I also think that hard line demagogues are exploiting the paranoia of the Israeli population to further pursue an expansionist agenda. My perception is that some of Israel's most aggressive leaders and foreign friends are not really worried about nuclear attack from Iran so much as as they are worried about the impact of a US opening toward Iran on continued US support for intransigence and further expansion in the colonized territories.
Finally, Israel has burned itself several times by empowering an ally or collaborator of convenience against a present threat, only to find that collaborator later evolves into an even more dangerous enemy (see: Hamas). The current movement against some Israelis and their US friends to make common cause with Sunni states against Iran, and in the process to stir up anti-Shia religious fanatics who live in those states, will almost inevitably come back to haunt them. Those same fanatics have whole chapters devoted to Israel in their demonologies, and to intensify their fanaticism against the Shia will surely serve to intensify their fanatical hatred of Israel in the process.
February 2, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I hope you have negotiated a contract with Josh Marshall to pay you based on the rate of comments elicited, because with this string of posts about Israel - a topic that excites passions like no other, and that people apparently never tire of - you have found a winning formula for record-setting levels of comment volume. :)
February 2, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first of all, that story is approaching urban legend status. There is no proof whatsoever that the so-called "keys to heaven" military campaign for lack of a better expression, happened. The only "proof" that was offered was an Iranian dissident, who Richard Perle introduced to a writer at the New Republic. The next story was offered by an IT tech who claimed to have seen the Iranians rope twenty children together and send them out from the trenches into no-man land. Then of course the story began escalating to where the Iranians were kidnapping kids off the street, taking them to the front lines, making them roll themselves up in blankets to contain the blood and body parts and forcing them to clear mines at gunpoint.
Now if we're projecting our values onto them, it would behoove us to remember that children have been used throughout the history of western civilization as "troops" in war. In our own civil war we took children as young as twelve years old as "volunteers".
It is always so much easier to think that your enemy is less than human, that he doesn't grieve over lost children, or their culture doesn't treasure life the way we do, or they want to die for their cause. By doing that, we can rationalize the crime of war.
It's ironic that you call us "cultural imperialists" when you deny them even the human emotion of loving their children.
February 2, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I guess I'll have to renegotiate my "contact" with Josh.
:-)
February 2, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I guess I'll have to renegotiate my "contract" with Josh.
:-)
February 2, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is a small country run by non-Arabs surrounded by countries run by Arabs. Her position will always be precarious, until and unless she invades her neighbors and takes over their countries - not likely in our lifetimes. One would hope that she would be mature enough to realize that the bully who pops up every once in a while in her neighborhood is just that - all talk and no walk.
Ahmadinejad is a blow-hard who, desperate to stay in power, spills rhetoric in hopes that it will keep him in office at least until the next election. Israel is and will continue to be the scapegoat for any Arab leader who's desperate to keep his job.
February 2, 2007 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a funny thing:
When the previous reformist Iranian president (Khatami) was in office, and was making great efforts to reach out to the United States, the same NeoCon sorts were advising against taking him seriously on the grounds that Iranian presidents legally are not very important since they don't run the military or intelligence services or the country's nuclear program anyway.
When Ahmadinejad is elected and says provocative things, all of a sudden he's presented as "THE LEADER" of Iran, and its assumed that he must run everything in Iran and can launch nuclear weapons right and left by mere whim.
Why is that? Could it be that there are forces in the US that don't want the US and Iran to start to get along, because it would be contrary to their (read: Israel's) Interests? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?
February 2, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There certainly was a move to give nuclear technology to Iran under the Shah - in fact Iran's existing research reactors and a small supply of nuclear fuel was given to the Shah, and several current members of the Bush administration approved of past nuclear deals with Iran.
SOURCE: Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy, By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, Sunday, March 27, 2005.
See the old news articles from those days here at
Iran Affairs
In fact it was recognized way back then that Iran would have to develop nuclear energy soon in order to keep up with domestic energy demand while being able to export oil.
So in effect, by demanding that Iran give up nuclear enrichment, we're demanding that Iran risk its people to starve and freeze in the near future.
SOURCE: Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons, Le Monde diplomatique
February 2, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm the one who deserves to be paid.
February 2, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the topic, Bev. If you were a Jew in London in 1940 and said freedom is free, there is no price to pay for it, People would have asked you how you expect to maintain your freedom. Poland was not able to pay the price for freedom. France was not able to pay the price for freedom.
The salons of Paris in 1930s were filled with bohemians discussing world affairs as if it were a parlor game. When the panzers rolled under the eiffel tower the game was over.
They lost their freedom.
Since you have no idea what has been done to pay for your freedom, you obviously fail to understand the value of it. There are brave men and women paying the price for it right now and you dishonor the price paid by all previous sacrifices to allow you to live free.
It was not a deflection. You threw such a fat pitch over the plate, Someone had to hit it out of the park.
If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, and you feel like your life is in danger and you may lose your freedom to live, Let's make sure to stop the police outside of your front door and ask them, "Wait, I know Bev is inside, but first let's have a long discussion about who will pay for this".
After all, the police might use violence to rescue you Bev, and being that I'm not a warmonger, I would hate for the police to use violence to protect your freedom. That's too high of a price to pay for your freedom.
Defense of life and liberty is our highest priority and if you aren't aware that its paid for, then how can you understand a discussion of the sacrifices that are necessary to defend them.
Hope you are enjoying your freedom, Bev, it just sprouted out of the ground just for you.
February 2, 2007 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like Cheney racing to the Middel East to meet with the Saudis?
Supported Iran? As Shlomo Bin-Ami says today the Sunni Arabs are pulling closer to Israeli not because they love Israel but they expect the U.S. to desert them and Israel will be their main protect against the Shiites.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 2, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your reference to the puppetmaster was to a post mentioning Israel. The question you asked was an extension of the reference to Israel. Israel is one of our allies.
But if you are now refering to the other nations you mentioned, if it "makes a lie out of Bush, etc..." OK, let's toss it in the file of Bush lies and take a look at it. Please tell me how many countries "explicitly support" Iran as you say. You mentioned the Persian gulf states. I guess are including Kuwait in that group. How about Qatar where the US military base "Al Udeid" is located. Maybe Dubai , United Arab Emirates is supporting Iran. Maybe Bahrain?
And regarding Castro and Chavez supporting him, yes there is a serious problem with his growing carnival of nutjobs. Even in Ahmedinijahd's own country last month an influential Cleric criticized him for globetrotting to Latin America, and drawing so much negative attention from the world.
But you give me an estimate of how many billions support Iran and what it is they are supporting.
There are times when one could imagine that even if the majority of the world was siding with a tyrant that opposed us in war, that we might still put American interests first.
February 2, 2007 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US is a greater threat to civilization than Iran? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
I have to agree with you on one thing. You have convinced me.
You have convinced me that Aliens from the moon are living amongst us...right here on earth. They are retaliating against yet another imperialist invasion of the Lunar surface this time.
They are called "Loonies" and your repeated spewing of Non Sequiturs has convinced me who their leader is.
February 2, 2007 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink