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 I