Ha'aretz Columnist: An Israeli Attack on Iran Would Be Suicidal
As usual, one has to turn to the Israeli media for the kind of discussion of the Middle East that one can not find here.
In this piece, Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy argues that Israel cannot survive by bombing its antagonists into submission. "Israel never thinks in terms of beyond tomorrow. It acts like a person who puts buckets in a house with a leaky roof instead of thoroughly fixing the roof. So we bombard Iran, and even if it is successful and we do not have to pay a heavy price for it - a dubious scenario - what happens then? What will happen when Egypt wants a bomb? Will we bomb again? And Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iraq? And perhaps Hezbollah has some "dirty bomb" or other? And will we "allow" Turkey to go nuclear? Will we bombard and bombard, and live forever by bombardment?"
Read what Levy has to say. You won't find a column like this in the Washington Post or the New York Times.
July 6, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, and Americans are stuck in a 1967war loop, with unchanged attitudes and prejudices? Likud must love McCain’s ”Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran ”as that approach keeps them in power. There are many irrational people in the world, just look at 9/11, and the ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan debacle; but what if the U.S. and Israel looked to strategic assistance to Palestine and Iran in lieu tactical force. Isn’t it possible to actually have progress in the Middle East?
July 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Bushies
No. It is not possible to have peace (you call it progress) in the Middle East. Nor is that an irrational position. It's a realistic one. I refer you to the 1931 Freud-Einstein exchange on the possibility of eliminating war. These two, after all, knew quite a bit about rationality and human nature.
July 6, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freud, Sept. 1932:
How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist? Impossible to say, and
yet perhaps our hope that these two factors--man's cultural disposition and a well-founded
dread of the form that future wars will take--may serve to put an end to war in the near
future, is not chimerical. But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot
guess. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural
development is working also against war.
Freud's observation that the dread of the form that future wars will take- may thwart any US/Israeli bombing of Iran.
July 6, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@NobleCommentDecider
Read his exchange with Einstein.
July 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quote was from Freud's exchange with Einstein, near the end.
July 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ NobleCommentDecider
Was it? Maybe I'll have to re-read it. I remember it as having occurred in 1931 rather than '32, that Freud was very pessimistic about the possibility of ever eliminating war because there would always be a few strong who would attempt to impose their will upon the many weak who would them combine to try to prevent it. Einstein didn't dispute that. Was that in the version you read?
July 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ noble comment decider
I should have known.
The Einstein-Freud Correspondence (1931-1932)
This is Freud's conclusion
He hopes that some evolutionary processes might eventually result in a mankind less prone to war and violence but that, obviously, is a long way in the future and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with an American/Israeli attack on Iran.
July 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ NobleCommentDecider
Also, consider what has happened since 1932. Ask yourself exactly how much that dread has influenced the behavior of man.
The way I read history the 50 years from 1932 to 1982 are the bloodiest ever recorded.
July 6, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again with your tiresome logical fallacies. This time it is three-in-one : Black and White Thinking, slippery slope, and false dilemma.
So just because Rosenberg questions the wisdom of American/Israeli action vis-à-vis the Middle East, he is implying that there should not be any Jews in the world. How absurd!!!
It is not one or the other (that is black and white thinking) it can be something in between, you see. It is not Nirvana or Doom in the reality based community, you see. Life is more complicated than you envision.
Maybe there should have been no Osiraq? No Entebbe? No Six Day War? No State of Israel? No Jews? Rosenberg you are truly our time's "useful idiot".
Classic slippery slope: one thing leads to the other eventually to "no Jews".
It can also fall under false dilemma in that you seem to be saying: either we bomb Iran or there will be no Jews. All in all how you managed to intertwine three classic fallacies into one package is astounding even for you the postmodern anti Enlightenment guy.
I know you probably don't even know what I'm talking about and that's to be expected.
July 6, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah and "Rosenberg you are a useful idiot" is ad hominem. So make that four fallacies within the span of what 40 words?
July 6, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ strat
Rosenberg questions the wisdom of taking risks. I think one must. Rosenberg thinks he has a policy which will end all risk for the foreseeable future. I think he's full of shit.
Simple. Stop being pretentious.
July 6, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The questions is which risks to take.
If Iran would in fact use an atomic weapon in the forseeable future on Israel, the fact that destroying any possible Iranian nuclear program by force would make future peace with Israel's neighbors much more difficult is irrelevant.
If Iran would not use the weapon but would continue to rely on threats, leaving their program intact and negotiating for long term peace would be in Israel's best interest.
The questions is how do you assess the probability that Iran would use the weapon.
From the historic record, Israel has a greater reason to accord weight to threats made.
America's military frequently claims that it is safer to base our military policy on an opponent's capability -- not on their intentions which can change.
The possible outcomes are also of different weight: If Iran is indeed lethal, and Israel guesses wrong and leaves the Iranian program intact Israel may cease to exist.
If Iran is not lethal, and Israel guesses wrong and boms their program anyway, future peace becomes more difficult but Israel continues to exist.
It is implicit in this view of the matter that for a number of reasons Israel will tend to be more likely to consider that a nuclear Iran is a dire threat -- to make a false positive prediction.
Iran is not helping the situation by indulging in the type of belligerent verbiage that often preceeds wars even if this is just intended to stir up support at home for a regime otherwise despised.
July 7, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
@AJM
That is the nub of it. IMO Iran will nuke Isreal as soon as it has the bombs. Therefore Isreal will strike before Obama takes office.
July 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"IMO Iran will nuke Isreal as soon as it has the bombs."
That's an impressive assertion! I wish I could know if it was true or not...
I think the tea leaves are pretty clear on the fact that neither Israel or the US has any basis for trusting in the intentions of the Iranians. Based on prior recent history, it seems rather prudent to not do so. The real question then becomes what do we truly know about their capabilities? There are lots of folks around the world who hate our proverbial 'guts' and don't have any capability to do shit about it. The worry is that Iran with nukes = motive + opportunity + capability.
The concern I have and it's the same one I had before our Iraqi debacle began: what if we're wrong? What if the russians aren't bluffing when they say 'DON'T BOMB IRAN!'? I know a lot of folks cringe at the idea that a post-soviet russia should even been considered when our vast imperial machinery is deciding it's next course of action! but the fact remains that they have tons of operable nukes just as capable as they were when it was the ussr and they are the ones who's engineers are at some of these disputed nuclear facilities installing things and showing the iranians how to make it work.
we need to look beyond the immediate horizon and think about what happens when we let our regional proxy start a war with russia's regional proxy. the stakes are higher than they first appear and the potential for a large escalation of hostilities is very real. just remember our potential adversaries have a real nice target (tens of thousands of our troops in theater) very close by to take aim at. not to mention, if the gloves come off in one place, they may come off elsewhere. how many of you realize we have troops fairly close to the always tense russia-georgia situation just to mention one.
I'm not saying we (or the israelis) shouldn't do so. Count me amongst those who think the iranian regime is unpredictable enough that very serious concerns should be raised about them being a nuclear enabled regime. HOWEVER, if the choice for war is made I would hope that it was made with eyes very widely opened to the possibility that this isn't a simple endeavor nor will it be a quick or painless one. we're going to be talking about a real war waged over vast areas encompassing many casualties on both sides. we and our allies will lose thousands (maybe many more) of our troops and the cost in money will dwarf the iraqi adventure. why? how could a mere bombing raid and retaliatory strikes mean all that? because the iranians and their allies will strike back. we'll have to respond and the cycle will begin only to end where no one knows.
to all those itching for a fight, just remember: wars are not nice, tidy, easily scripted affairs.
Things go wrong, people die and you CAN lose strategically even if you win all the battles and engagements.
It's a lesson we would do well to take from our current operations in the region. I know for a fact that our military leadership gets this but it is very much in question as to whether our political leadership does.
July 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ AJM
Exactly. Correctly assessing the risks and acting appropriately is what leadership is all about. Unfortunately, we all know how difficult it is to find good leaders.
July 7, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
As LBJ said, "Doing the right thing is easy. Knowing the right thing is hard."
July 7, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM says:
"It is implicit in this view of the matter that for a number of reasons Israel will tend to be more likely to consider that a nuclear Iran is a dire threat -- to make a false positive prediction."
This is how we got into Iraq.
AJM says:
"Iran is not helping the situation by indulging in the type of belligerent verbiage that often preceeds wars even if this is just intended to stir up support at home for a regime otherwise despised."
Exactly, the rhetoric needs to be toned down. I wonder what the Iranians think of Ahmadinejad's saber rattling.
After 9/11, there were television films of Iranians marching in support and sympathy of our tragedy, and from what I understand, they were were also helping us in Afghanistan...then Bush put them in the Axis of Evil.
July 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is risky behavior that borders on the reckless and then there is sensible risk management. To you it is all black and white. That's my point.
July 7, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OTU,
Here! Here! Well said.
FB
July 6, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better a "useful idiot" than a useless idiot who would make such a comment.
July 7, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"@JohnW1141
4 posts. All ad hominem attacks directed at me. Nothing else. Clearly, that's all you've got. Clearly, that all you are; an angry, vindictive, small-minded empty head."
and,
"Rosenberg you are truly our time's "useful idiot"."
heh, heh, heh.
July 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
if we listen to people like you and Levy there might some day be peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I don't see how bombing Iran moves that along.
If peace broke out between the Israelis and Palestinians what would Bill Kristol, or the Kagins, or Benny Netanyahu, etc. do for a living?
"In this piece, Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy argues that Israel cannot survive by bombing its antagonists into submission."
We couldn't bomb the Germans into submission, we couldn't bomb the North Vietnamese into submission, the Germans couldn't bomb either England or Russia into submission. It seems like the only time bombing people into submission worked was in Japan, and as we know, that took two nukes.
Has Israel had any peace since they bombed Osiraq?
I don't remember any.
Of course the war mongers will speculate on what 'might' have happened, "mushroom clouds" and all that.
July 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Preventing war by engaging in war is for idiots like Bush. People who still think rationally will try every single alternative before planning on war.
No one could successfully argue that the attack on Iraq made anything better for anyone, other than the armaments industry, which has made a bundle off of the activity. Oh, and the "contractors", mercenaries by another name, have also benefitted, but that just about ends that list.
July 6, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
what pisses me off no end, is that so many people who never availed themselves of military service, (Cheney, etc) even during peace time, seem so ready to champion war, then send others off to do the fighting.
Maybe they live vicariously in the experiences of our soldiers in war zones. Maybe it makes them feel like tough guys; 'we're gonna kick ass' babble. Bush was the classic example with his "bring it on" bullsh**. He had his chance to bring it on during the Vietnam years and he bailed out.
Bomb Iran, yeah, that'll show 'em!.
July 6, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
if Israel has the right to bomb Iran for no reason, the Iran or ANY OTHER FUCKING COUNTRY ON THE PLANET has the right to bomb Israel for no apparent reason
If Israel bombs Iraq without provocation, then everybody has a good given fight to chant DEATH TO ISRAEL
see how that works
do un to others as you would have others do un to you
what goes around comes around
Israel better pull it's head out of it's ass
July 6, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For no reason? I think when Iran's president said he would 'wipe Israel off the map', and 'drive them into the sea' among other things, that makes his intentions pretty clear. He also said he would risk killing 1/3 or more of his population to destroy Israel. So waiting for him to get the tools to do it is pretty stupid.
July 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the correct translation was that he wanted to get rid of the present Israeli goverment.
July 7, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tlees2
You probably believe the check is in the mail and multiple other idiocies. Try this
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
Next time be a little cautious about believing Juan Cole, Alexander Cockburn, and that whole gang.
July 7, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole's a great source. Add Patrick Cockburn to alexander as great sources. Read the Israeli press online as MJ suggests.
July 8, 2008 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ tlees2
Did you go to the link I posted? Mistranslation is a red herring. Ahmadinejad wants to destroy the Jewish state and expel its Jewish population. That much is clear to any person who isn't completely deaf, dumb, and blind.
July 8, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This latest "post" of Rosenberg's is merely a link to someone else's article to which he adds "me too." (How he gets this kind of billing on TPM amazes me, but that's another issue.)
I do not advocate the bombing of Iran.
Neither do I advocate "welcoming" Iran or North Korea into the "community of nations."
Does anyone who reads TPM want to re-locate to either of these wonderful nations?
N. Korea is run by a lunatic who subjects his own people to horrors unimaginable by American standards. But Der Fuhrer is mortal. And the hope there is that once this lunatic dies, a space for freedom may open.
Iran is a nation run by fundamentalist Shiite Muslim Ayatollahs. It represses its own population on religious grounds, though is certainly no where near as brutal as regime as N. Korea's. Nevertheless, it is hardly the type of government structure that inspires trust among nations that enjoy freedom, such as the US and Israel.
Any nation ruled by religious fanatics, regardless of the specific religion, is not a nation that the world should be comfortable with possessing nuclear weapons, period.
The USSR was not ruled by religious fanatics, therefore the strategy of Mutual Assured Deterrence actually worked. Brezhnev was not at all interested in becoming a martyr and joining Allah and his infinite supply of virgins.
Iran is ruled by people who are.
There's plenty of time and space for maneuver before any military intervention in Iran is necessary. But legitimizing their lunatic regime should not be something Israel or the US succumbs to.
July 6, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
FredrickBernanke asks;
"Does anyone who reads TPM want to re-locate to either of these wonderful nations?"
Fredrick, I don't understand the reasoning behind this question, please explain?
Why would anyone who reads TPM even consider re-locating to either of these countries?
July 7, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
JW1141,
The rhetorical question of mine you quote referred to "welcoming Iran and N. Korea into the community of nations," as though we were discussing Switzerland or something.
FB
July 7, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saudi Arabia is welcome into the community of nations, and they most certainly are not measurably better than Iran, except for the above board bluster against America. The Saudi's, however, don't bother with bluster, they just organize, finance and conduct "hate America" schools all over the Islamic world.
As best I can remember, the Bush family is very close to the Saudi "royal family", Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, the members of the bin Laden family in America on 9/11 were allowed to leave with little or no questioning, and no significant effort has been put into capturing Osama bin Laden.
But, we are supposed to abhor Iran. I don't get it.
July 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me optimistic in that I believe that the current regime in Iran is no more religious than was the regime in the USSR during the cold war.
A (formerly Iranian) co-worker and I discussed his experiences in Iran before and during the takeover in 1979/1980 and his reaction was that they were thieves.
This little anecdote supports my hypothesis that when mixed with great power, religion has nothing to do with personal belief and much more to do with how religious rules can be used to manipulate the masses, regardless of the particular sect the tyrants/thieves/powermongers claim to represent. In my informal reading of history, I see very very few "religious leaders" who apply consistent rules of honor to their shee^H^H^H^H people and themselves. They want to be alive to run the caliphate or whatever they believe their goals to be, and lacking that power, remain alive and influential in their nations. The Iranian leadership knows that an attempt to attack outside their borders (other than accepting the U.S. invitation to help with Iraq) would be met by very very serious force.
The leadership of Iran are still dangerous, they are still a force to contend with, and there is still plenty to be concerned about their intent. But while religious people may be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater glory of God or Allah, thieves and power-mad tyrants have no such "nobility".
So I believe, perhaps optimistically, that Iranian leadership has a basic sense of self-preservation that would prevent the ultimate insanity.
July 7, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lenski says;
"So I believe, perhaps optimistically, that Iranian leadership has a basic sense of self-preservation that would prevent the ultimate insanity."
I agree. Even if Iran had a nuke or two, what would they do with it? If they used it they would cease to exist. If they gave it to some lunatic who used it, they risk being found out, again, they cease to exist. Many Iranians may be fanatics, but they aren't stupid. It isn't only the reaction of the United States or Israel a used Iranian nuke would elicit, but the rest of the world's.
1- Bush invaded Iraq and is now occupying it.
2- Bush complains of Iranian actions in Iraq;
irony, or is that hypocrisy? is lost on the Bush gang.
The Bush gang's attention to Iran is not for altruistic purposes.
July 7, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
lenski,
Are you aware of how the Iranian government is structured? I think not.
The public face of the regime is Ahmadijibad; the power of the regime rests behind the scenes with the Council of Mullahs (or a similiarly named body.)
The written Constitution of Iran is available online.
I read it.
All the power of employing violence resides with Ayatollahs, not the figure head President nor the legislature.
FB
July 7, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
@F.B.
Yes sir, I absolutely do know that the real power is wielded by the council of mullahs. I also find it difficult to believe that they all work from only one perspective, religious or otherwise.
I stand by my earlier comment that such people, religious or not, have a strong tendency to behave like bullies: Strong with words, weak with deeds. Strong with other peoples' lives, weak with their own.
I never thought Ahmadinejad had enough influence to simply command a self-destructive attack outside Iran's borders. And the probability that a self-destructive attack would be started by the council of mullahs is reduced due to the fact that the council consists of multiple people, and that some sort of consensus or majority would be needed to launch such an attack.
Disclaimer: This hypothesis depends on the premise that Iran doesn't experience a substantial attack by a known enemy. If Israel or the U.S. does something colossally stupid, then all bets are off. In which case, things are likely to go seriously to hell and we might as well party like it's 1999....
July 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
lenski,
"I stand by my earlier comment that such people, religious or not, have a strong tendency to behave like bullies: Strong with words, weak with deeds. Strong with other peoples' lives, weak with their own."
I was not suggesting that the Ayatollahs were going to don fatigues, grab AK-47's THEMSELVES and jump into the front lines of battle.
They indeed have other peoples' lives at their disposal (as does Bush), and just as bin Laden had no trouble sending the 19 fanatics to their certain death in the name of Allah, so too the Ayatollahs, under the right set of circumstances, would send their minions to certain death as well.
Religious fanatics are, by definition, fanatics.
FB
July 7, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meet the President of the US of A: George W. Bush, religious fanatic in chief, with his finger always on the red button.
July 7, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the ideal time for Israel to be contemplating a blitz of Iran, when its close ally the U.S. has labored five long years in the desert to set up a vehemently pro-Iranian government?
July 7, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear American Voters, reporters, media. professionals, political parties, and our hon. Presidential Nominees,
Subject: Presidential Temperament
Please talk about and "Compare And Contrast" the " Presidential Temperament" of our Presidential presumptive nominees. I will also request and plead to the nominees themselves [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama ].
Our nation has been applying this yard and stick tor the appointments and confirmation process of our Supreme Court Justices nominees.
Our Greatgrand Nation Foundations are as under:
Family, friends, fellows, faith, funds, fun, with fairness & freedom And without fear, favor, and failure.
It will be disgrace and shameful if the nominees and media will not look into this critical and crucial aspect under current challenging times and circumstances within our country and all around the Globe.
America wake up and the discuss the " Presidential Temperament" of our presumptive presidential nominee's [ Hon. Senator McCain and Obama].
Yours sincerely,
COL. A.M.Khajawall [Ret].
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas, Nevada
PS: So will be electing Hon. Senator McCain as our president>
July 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
akhajawall,
I agree, temperament is important, look at "Bring it on" Bush.
I saw McCain on TV addressing an audience, he said with much passion: "I will never surrender in Iraq. I will never surrender in Iraq."
It occurred to me that he was taking this Iraq war personally, maybe he wants to re-fight Vietnam, but he scared me with that hetoric.
What did he mean by "I" will never surrender?
Why does he use the word "surrender"? He's used it before in "Some want to raise the white flag of surrender."
McCain is frightening.
July 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Headlines in USA Today (7-8): Iraq May Demand Timetable for US Withdrawal....aka: Iraq may kick our butts out.
As David Corn posted on his site, if Iraq gets worse it's bad for McCain, if Iraq gets better or Maliki kicks out the troops, it is also bad for McCain.
July 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just give the Jews Alaska and call it a day.
July 7, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it, it is hard to tell to what degree the policies of Israel and USA were more rational than policies of North Korea and Iran.
There is really no evidence that Iran pursues nuclear weapons, as opposed to the evidence that Iran pursues the capability to block the traffic in and out of Persian Gulf in case of being attacked. Call it "economic mutually assured destruction", slow, reversible, implementable, and hard to knock-out from the air, as the experience of Lebanon war showed.
So what the attack on Iran can accomplish at this point? It will not destroy the nuclear program that does not exist (weapon program, that is), it will lead to a huge economic and political crisis, and it will connect the American support of Israel with a huge increase of gas prices (hopefully, short lived).
Altogether, a winnable combination for Iran, less so for Israel, and totally, totally stupid for USA.
July 7, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
piotr,
"The way I see it, it is hard to tell to what degree the policies of Israel and USA were more rational than policies of North Korea and Iran."
I assume the above remark of yours was said in jest. Yes?
If not, and you see no fundamental distictions between countries like the US & Israel and countries like North Korea & Iran, there's not much sense in trying to have a conversation with you.
[I am not in favoring of taking military action against Iran.]
FB
July 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Rational" is not the same as "nice".
Similarly, "irrational" is not the same as "stupid", but it may mean that an elite feels so secure about the strategic superiority of its state that can plot foreign policy as a way of scoring points in the internal politics rather then for any kind of objective benefit.
Now, consider this:
Either a bombing by Israel will be a non-event, like the one in Syria, or Iran will indeed do something in Hormuz, as the "matters" will already be escalated. And then what? We bomb, they shoot missiles, very much like Lebanon war, except the world economy is in flames, rather than Beirut. And what do we do after a month of that?
Iranian leaders are actually pretty deft in escalating and de-escalating according to their needs. Judging on what happened when they intercepted a British patrol next to their waters (or within?), their demand would be minimal and "sensible", just enough to make us loose face. But "sensible" enough to get a nod from Russia, China and India.
And if we retaliate, say, against Iranian cities, and Russia will reply by re-supplying Iran with state of the art anti-ship missiles, and the hell will get loose in Iraq, and possibly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and who knows where...
July 8, 2008 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately you left out one group that most likely would gain big time by an immediate attack on Iran - the Republicans and their corporate beneficiaries. If we attack Iran the nation circles the wagons around the Republicans, McCain becomes the next president, and the Congress most likely gets at least an ineffective Democratic majority (try not to laugh when posting something like that!), but more likely, a small GOP majority.
That is the temptation facing the neocon administration right now.
July 7, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the iranian nuclear weapons program doesn't exist, then Israel shouldn't attack.
Amd you shouldn't take the finesse if the king sits to the right of the Queen.
But should Israel attack if the Iranians are pursuing a nuclear weapon program and will have a nuclear weapon with the year,
July 7, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuke Israel and be nuked by Israel, and by the U.S.?
The claim has been made here that the mullahs are crazy and will do anything. Maybe. But Israel's leadership and our own seems, ummm, a little irrational at times, too. And the nukes haven't started flying yet.
Besides, if Iran nuked Israel first, the retaliation would not simply be against Iran's nuclear facilities, and the Iranians know it. It would be total annihilation.
July 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
I don't think you or anyone else can make any of those calculations with certainty, which is why all this is so difficult.
The Iranians and many, many Muslims are on record as saying they would be willing to pay a heavy price to see Israel destroyed. How heavy? And how serious are they? I don't know and you certainly don't know.
Then there's the question of retaliation. 5 bombs or even less would completely destroy Israel and its Jewish population. In retaliation, how much of the Arab, Middle-Eastern, or Muslim world could Israel destroy?
How would the United States respond? You claim you know...but you don't. Much of the Left is anti-war and anti-Israel. To they extent they held power they would vote against a nuclear response so there's a good chance the U.S. wouldn't respond at all.
July 7, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
I don't claim to know any of these things with certainty. And I don't know how many nukes possesses itself, which certainly affects the outcome for the larger country of Iran.
From what I know of the Democratic Congressmen and Senators, however, they are strongly pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel myself.
One of the ludicrous aspects of this situation is that our Army is parked on Iran's doorstep propping up a pro-Iranian regime. If we pulled out soon our soldiers would no longer be pinned down where they would be most vulnerable to Iranian reprisal, Iran would have its hands full with propping up al-Maliki's regime, and Ahmadijibad would instantly lose popularity.
That is just a speculation but is no less plausible than any other.
July 7, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, "As usual, one has to turn to the Israeli media for the kind of discussion of the Middle East that one can not find here." is a false statement. One does have to look to other than the corporate controlled mass media, but such discussions do take place here.
Second, WOW, the posters on this thread reflect exactly what Freud and Einstein were discussing.
Third, while Iran is Muslim, it is also Persian in it's history. There are many arabs in Israel and the U.S. has armed the Arab nations mightily so an attack on Israel would certainly be an excuse for those Arab 'leaders' -as described in the E/F correspondence- to attack Iran. This is especially true in view of Salafism and Wahhabism.
The issue of ANY nation other than Israel having nuclear weapons in the Mideast has less to do with 'wiping Israel off the map'(a misquotation by the media) than to be THE supreme power in the Middle East. Zionism has no rational for 'detente' in it's philospohy; therefore no one else can have nuclear weapons. EOS.
July 7, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether you fall on one side or the other, could we all agree that "wipe Israel off the map" is a deliberate misquote endlessly repeated to simplify this administration's neofascist approach to foreign relations and its antagonism to Iran as the sole remaining leg of their imaginary axis-of-evil stool. Anybody sustaining this mindless propaganda needs a heavy dope slap.
The reflexive use of force before even attempting all other possible avenues shows a distinct lack of imagination in both the method of achieving the goal and the associated costs, short and long term.
I know. I know. Imagination and this administration is oxymoronic. 6 more months to make things worse than what they've already achieved. Nothing could surprise me with these self-reinforcing clowns.
Read the posts over at Haaretz. No wonder humanity is in trouble.
July 7, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God there is a more sensible Israeli than the Bush Administration or the hawkish component of U.S. media who promote bomb bomb bomb Iran. They are the same guys who encouraged Iraq war.
July 7, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has there ever been a nation that attacked another knowing that the attackee had nuclear weapons and could destroy it in a retaliatory strike. There has not been.
Despite the racist assertion that certain people of color would happily lose their kids in an effort to destroy Israel, I say it's bunk.
The Iranians no more are prepared to lose their kids than the Israelis are.
Or we are.
Even the Nazis would not have attacked the Czechs, Jews or Brits if they knew that the price was their own extinction.
Muslims love their kids as much as we do.
July 7, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
You're on record as saying no stupid war is worth the lives of your kids.
When I contrast that with the attitudes of the families - like the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, the MacArthurs, the McCains, even the much compromised Bushes - who risked their lives to defend their country I conclude you are a disease rather than a person.
July 7, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you are a disease rather than a person" From Johannes Chrysostomus to Julius Streicher to o.
July 8, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Hans Suter
You equate my criticism of a liar - Israel has had UNIVERSAL military service since it was founded - who refuses to honor his most basic civic duty and encourages others to emulate him with the rantings of some of histories worst anti-semites?
You are one sick f**k.
July 8, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You are one sick f**k."
I suppose you think you don't have issues?
July 8, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ said a nation that attacked another knowing that the attackee had nuclear weapons and could destroy it in a retaliatory strike.
Offensive, in his comment about Kennedys etc, is on record as either hallucinating while posting on TPM or believing:
(1)that the US attacked Japan to start WW2, ergo, offensive believes that either the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did not occur, or that it was in retaliation for an as yet unknown (to all but OTY) US attack on Japan prior to Dec. 7, 1941.
(2)offensive believes the Japanese in 1941 had nuclear weapons and the means deliver them in order to destroy the United States, in retaliation for the (unknown) US first strike on Japan. mentioned above.
July 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
The assertions you allude to had nothing whatever to do with people of color, except in your simplistic, knee-jerk liberal mind.
The assertion was that countries who are ruled by RELIGIOUS FANATICS are countries the world should not feel comfortable with having nuclear weapons.
Where is any "color" reference in that statement?
Would you feel comfortable if your boys in al Qaeda had nukes in their arsenal? And how in the world do you know what Hitler would have done if he had nukes?
Religious fanatics, the people who rule Iran TODAY, are by definition fanatics, and, worse yet, fanatics ruled by the illogic of religion.
My position does not imply that the solution is to bomb Iran. But it does explicitly state that Iran, and other nations like it, is not a country that any sane free person should want to have nuclear bombs at its disposal.
Your naive, wishful thinking approach to national security is, I'm certain, not shared by your candidate.
FB
July 7, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
It is estimated that the Iranians lost around a million men in the Iran/Iraq war - mostly young men.
Israel has been continuously at war for nearly a hundred years and that war has been fought by everyone, every Israeli citizen.
During WWII we lost 350,000 dead. In Korea and VietNam probably close to a 100,000 more. In other subsequent wars and actions not too many killed but many, many seriously wounded.
And yet you sit back and lie through your teeth, hiding behind the sacrifice of others while HORRIFICALLY claiming that everyone is as selfish and cowardly as you.
July 8, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that those who are frightened to death of Iran avail themselves of the information about the huge arsenal of defensive weapon systems, American and Israeli, that are deployed on land & sea in order to protect Israel against Iran's Shahab-3 missiles and their creaky Air Force.
It's no contest.
Hells' bells, the spanking new commander of the Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral William Gortney is none other than the naval aviator who was in charge of the seagoing efforts during the warfighting portion of OIF. We are ready for action in the region and in fact, practicing for it.
An excellent discussion of the chances for war in the NYT Review of Books (HT Shmuel Rosner) is troubling as in addition to distrust of the neocon warmongers and the WH, the author points out another potential area of trouble for those opposed to the whole notion :
"It is a strange fact that the locus of opposition to attack on Iran is not in Congress but in the Pentagon..."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21592
Again and again, our elected represenatatives on the Hill are highly suspect when it comes to whether or not they would support an attack on Iran. Yet the press never seems to be interested in holding their feet to the probabilities of stoking the Iranian warfires.
The legislation promoting blockades of Iran are a nod to promoting a US action that is an overt act of war. The outgoing commander of the Fifth Fleet Cosgriff has already said that he considers any Iranian attempts to close the Straits of Hormuz an act of war against "the international community" and that they will not be permitted to do so. So, if Israel attacks Iran and they close the Straits that's a signal for US and perhaps some allies such as the Brits to escalate matters.
People watching the action in the Gulf are getting more, not less nervous and the Iranian rhetoric from her military commanders is also ratcheting up.
No matter that some higher-ups the Pentagon are trying to forestall a war against Iran, if ordered, they will obey.
Guess who will be blamed by the American public? No plausible deniability this time 'round; Israel and her delusional "supporters" will be taking the heat.
July 7, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The American public never blames Americans for any military activity that we take part in. We rally behind our President and believe everything he tells us. The only American's at risk for being blamed are Democrats who will have Presidential fingers pointing at them as traitors. This is an attack on Iran is a sure way to get McCain installed as the next President.
July 7, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. Thank you. We need this broadcast loudly.
Bombardment is not a long-term strategy.
U.S./Israeli policy towards Iran is (threatening) bombardment.
Prudent policies examine the long-term.
Therefore, the U.S./Israel attacking Iran is not rational.
July 8, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli bombardment of Beirut worked out real well.
If you're Hezbollah, that is.
Just like the American invasion of Iraq scored a coup for Iran.
These consequences may have been unintended, but they were hardly unforeseeable. In fact, besides their moral indefensibility, they show a complete lack of common sense.
July 8, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no morality or long term strategic thinking involved here. There is only one calculation. Is it doable? No, I don't mean do benefits exceed the costs. I mean is it doable at any cost with or without any benefits?
After many years of watching chest thumping bluster, I have come to the conclusion that, for whatever reason, attacking Iran is not doable.
For a reality check on Iran, see
http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
July 8, 2008 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has no one yet figured it out? There are persons in this world, and in the United States who will do anything to keep Bush in power. Don't tune in only to TPM etc. Listen to the other side. They believe that Obama will be an absolute catastrophe (to their bank accounts and to Israel). Here is what may happen: Huge terroism in the US, maybe even nuclear weapons. Bush will assume it is Iran, though it will really be people we would never suspect. Bush, the decider that he is, will annhilate Iran. He will shoot, then ask questions. Don't you see? Just setting Iran back a few years with tactical bombing will not do the trick in their eyes. There are people who want Iran annhilated. Their last chance is Bush, and they will have to act quickly. When/if this happens, Bush will call off the elections. Is that Far out enough? See if it happens, if not, I am glad, and you can then call me crazy.
July 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink