Top Israeli Predicts Conventional -- and then Nuclear Attack on Iran
Benny Morris is a prominent mainstream Israeli historian so his words matter. And, according to what I hear, the views expressed here reflect what many Israelis think. So we better pay attention.
Morris predicts that Israel will attack Iran sometime between the Presidential election and Inauguration Day. He says that we all (including the Iranians) better hope that the Israeli attack succeeds in eliminating Iran's nuclear program because, if it doesn't, Israel will have to resort to using a nuclear weapon.
For Morris, there is no alternative (he dismisses the idea of negotiations). For Morris it is simple. Iran is working on a nuclear weapon. It won't be stopped by sanctions. The United States is too chicken to attack Iran. So....Israel has to do the job.
In passing he mentions that the war he envisions will destroy the global economy, spew radioactive pollution everywhere, and cause terrorist attacks in the US but, what the hay, we can't let them have nukes and we can't negotiate so....if we die, we die.
I'd say Morris is certifiable but for the fact that he is expressing a view common in Israel and in neocon circles here.
I was up at the Senate the other day, talking to a top aide to an important Democratic Senator. He thought that Senate Dems would push for impeachment if the US attacked Iran. When I agreed but said that if Israel attacks, the same Senators will come down to the floor to offer congratulations, he agreed.
We better pay attention to this. An attack by Israel will have the same consequences for America as an attack by the US. Unfortunately, we don't have a say on whether Israel attacks or not. We'll just pay the price (along with Israel, Iran, and the world).
How many days left until Jan. 20?
MJ says;
"An attack by Israel will have the same consequences for America as an attack by the US."
MJ, I agree, and as I've stated before; any attack on Iran by the US or Israel will be paid for in blood by Americans and Israelis alike.
July 20, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is working on a nuclear weapon.
They could stop and all would be well. But they won't...because they know every leftie A-hole on the planet will justify their actions and blame Israel and the United States.
Just at MJRosenswine does.
July 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou quotes:
"Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power."
Every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Perhaps it all depended on what the meaning of the word "had" is.
What would Iran do with a Nuke if they had one...or two?
As to your insult to MJ (MJRosenswine), I guess you just can't help yourself.
July 20, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Has this been your position all along? I doubt it. Probably no more than the last 10 minutes. Because the usual leftie position has been that the CIA and our other intelligence agencies did NOT believe that Saddam had WMD, and that Cheney and friends manipulated and cherry-picked to make it seem as if they did. So why don't you prove to me that you publicly endorsed your current position for at least the last 3 years?
More important, nations act on the best intelligence estimate available, not on the worst, and certainly the lack of same which is typical of today's Left.
....or 10 or 20? Gee, I don't know. Why would they want them if they have no use? Israel - outside of its opposition to their atom program - never posed a threat to them...and no one else in the region has such weapons.
July 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Israel isn't in the "region" then or are you pretending they don't have nukes? It boggles the mind how people can believe that a nuclear armed Israel doesn't provoke an arms race by those who feel threatened by Israel. And since this thread is just one of a zillion on how Israel DOES threaten Iran why wouldn't Iran feel threatened by Israel and seek weapons or allies in response? It's simple game theory. I don't know why ideology and religious beliefs so blind people to objective cause and effect, action and reaction. And fine, tell me Iran threatens Israel. So what, it's still the same game, action and reaction, escalation and war.
July 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ bluebell
Why don't you tell me how Israel threatens Iran (outside of Iran's nuclear program)? Specifically. Not bullshit references to "game theory" which you don't understand. That ought to be easy since ther've been a "zillion" threads on the subject.
July 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the thread header?
July 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ bluebell
Stop being evasive. Just list the ways Israel threatens Iran (other than Iran's nuclear program).
July 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou asks;
Why don't you tell me how Israel threatens Iran (outside of Iran's nuclear program)?
Though you tried to slither out by using the word "outside", you answered your own question.
heh heh heh
July 20, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Any other threats besides the threat to Iran's nuclear program? Come on, dumb-ass. Say something worthwhile.
July 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says:
"Any other threats besides the threat to Iran's nuclear program? Come on, dumb-ass. Say something worthwhile."
One threat to bomb a number of locations, destroy infrastructure and obviously kill a number of Iranians is enough.
Your tactic is to try to discount the threat by adding qualifiers like; "outside of Iran's nuclear program", "other than Iran's nuclear program."
When is a threat not a threat? When there is not more than one.
How many threats do you require?
July 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
The Israelis have threatened to destroy Iran's nuclear program. They have made no other threat against Iran, now or ever.
Your attempt to portray the threat as something else is completely and thoroughly dishonest and despicable...
...but it's what I've come to expect from the Left which is why I treat you all with such contempt.
July 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
According to you morons, Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons because Israel had threatened it.
But Israel NEVER threatened Iran prior to Iran's attempt to gain nuclear weapons. I've asked you all - repeatedly - to prove me wrong. You couldn't. Therefore, the justification for Iran's nuclear program fails.
The illogic of your position doesn't bother you. Nor have any of you mentioned the illegality of Iran's position as a signator to the non-Proliferation treaty...even though you are CONSTANTLY using legal arguments against Israel. Nor have any of you mentioned the UN opposition to Iran's nuclear program...even though you constantly blamed the US for defying the UN.
All you want to do is blame the US (particularly the Republicans and George Bush) and Israel. For the trouble in the Middle East. For the economic problems at home. For all your personal failures. For anything and everything.
July 20, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensivetoyou says;
You're obviously blind to the sarcasm and ridicule of "intelligence" in my post. And, your question about my proving my position for the last 3 years is asinine. How the hell could I accomplish that?
My current position has been the same as its always been, I never believed the Bush/Cheney gang and their Atta meeting in Prague, mushroom clouds, yellowcake and those aluminun tubes that their own energy dept told them were not conducive for centrifuges. I believed the weapons inspectors, David Kaye, Scott Ritter, and the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer and appointed by Bush, Saddam didn't have any WMD, they were destroyed after Desert Storm.
Gee, they might want them for the same reason Israel wants them, India and Pakistan want them, Russia and the USA want them.
July 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
There is an interpretation that I haven't covered; Benny Morris is either lying or misinformed about the opinions of the world's intelligence services. Somehow, I doubt you even thought of that...but it's worth asking.
July 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
India and Pakistan have fought several wars with each other and with China. The United States developed nuclear weapons because it was engaged in a war to the death with Japan and Germany and had good reason to fear that Germany was attempting to do the same thing. The Soviet Union had very good reason to fear the capitalist powers - beginning with their invasion in force in 1917-1919 in support of forces opposed to the Red army.
Exactly when has Israel threatened or invaded Iran? Never. Does Iran share a border with Isael? No. So why does Iran have to protect itself against Israel?
July 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Iran share a border with Isael? No. So why does Iran have to protect itself against Israel?
How will the Israelis destroy Iran's nuclear program? However we answer that question also answers the question of why Iran feels it needs to protect itself against Israel.
That seems rather obvious.
July 20, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
That is a very good question. You seem to have a talent for that. There is no good answer. Benny Morris emphasizes that. So does anyone else who's thought about it.
Sorry, no. This is the worst kind of circular reasoning. Iran is developing nuclear weapons because of the threat Israel poses. What threat? The threat that Israel will destroy its nuclear weapons. I'd be ashamed to be caught making an argument like that...but its the best any of you can do.
July 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You accuse me of circular reasoning, but I'm afraid I don't see how you complete the circle, so I'm not sure about what you would have me be ashamed.
You also accuse me of justifying Iran's actions, but don't seem to offer any evidence.
And I still don't understand how an Israel with nuclear weapons doesn't threaten Iran, but an Iran developing a nuclear weapon (if they are, which our NIE denies) does threatened Israel.
Maybe it's just because I'm such a stupid, uninformed anti-semite.
July 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
I presented the argument clearly. If you can't see it you never will.
What then were you doing? What are you doing now when you say
Of course, you're characterizing Iran's actions as defensive and therefore legitimate. I can't be sure you'd take the next step and characterize Israel's actions as offensive...as so many of the morons who inhabit this site repeatedly do. That's for you to tell me.
Nuclear weapons anywhere threaten everyone. That's the horrible thing about such weapons. But I don't think you mean that. I think you mean that Israel's weapons are specifically targeted at Iran for no good reason...and would be regardless of Iran's policies. I call bullshit! I've said, and say again, that is the Muslim world which is trying to destroy Israel, not the other way round.
Is Iran developing a nuclear weapon despite the findings of our NIE? Neither you nor I can answer that with anything more than opinion. Mine is that they are. Benny Morris says all the world's intelligence services agree. If it could be shown that that wasn't true I would be less certain.
July 20, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid that either you were totally unclear, or that I am completely bereft of my abilities with the English language. And since you seem unable or unwilling to clarify further, and I am too old to further my language skills, I suppose we are at an impasse.
Still, you keep replying to things I did not say, and for a person as intelligent as you this seems odd. Could it be that your point of view skews your reading of my comments just a jot?
As it seems I am unable to stop playing the asshole in your eyes, I don't suppose there is much sense in our continuing this conversation, so I'll let you run along to all the more important work you have to do, raising MJ's hit rate. No wonder you do so! You give your critics so many juicy targets at which to fire, and it appears you are congenitally incapable of letting them pass without some equally juicy rejoinder.
I hope you have enjoyed our tete-a-tete as much as I have.
July 20, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard says;
Tankard, he constantly misinterprets what the opposition says then he attacks his misinterpretation.
Exactly, and its what I told him a number of times;
he isn't a stupid person, but his mind is so ideologically fu**ed up it causes him to say stupid things.
July 21, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning absolutely no disrespect to you, I have recently come to the conclusion that when we discuss each others' personalities, characterizations of ideology or ideation, or debating styles, we seldom generate a productive discussion. For example, OTY could easily simply turn your criticism around on you.
You wouldn't have to look beyond this thread to understand that I am on your side of the argument. I, too, find that OTY's comments are founded on the appeal to negative emotions, with just a fig leaf of fact, pseudo-fact, analysis, and pseudo-analysis. But even stating these observations as I do here gives him reason and justification to strike back with More Of The Same. So complaining about it seems to me to counter-productive -- just generating the same behavior that we dislike. (Or do we?)
I hope you take this in the spirit I intend. I understand how you feel, and I often behave the same way as you do, so I have no position from which to criticize you. But I'm working on it.
July 21, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
Misinterpretation and misunderstandings are very common in human affairs...for lots of reasons. That's especially true in the political arena where passions run high and perceptions and interests vary greatly.
In my first post, my initial response to Rosenthal's article, I said that every poster would support Iran's right to nuclear weapons and blame Israel and the U.S. for the current escalation.
That's what happened...and virtually everyone continued with Rosenthal's characterization of the Israelis (and Americans) as mad and irresponsible, and the Iranians as sober, cautious, and reasonable.
So where's the misinterpretation, the misunderstanding, the strawman argument? Surely, you didn't expect that people as far apart as we are would find it easy to discuss our differences?
July 22, 2008 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
he constantly misinterprets what the opposition says then he attacks his misinterpretation
Your description, of course, is nearly a textbook description of a strawman argument. And you're correct, that is indeed one of the things OTY does on a consistent basis.
July 22, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon, I forgot to mention that I am a piece of excrement, delusional, a jackass wedded to my stupidity, and a masturbator. You won't have to remind me of any of these, but I have no doubt that you will have noticed any number of defects that I have yet to identify and claim.
July 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ tankard
I think I've treated you with respect in all our conversations, despite our disagreements. But if you want me to treat like an asshole, just start behaving like one.
July 20, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange. I thought that Pakistan and Russia had nukes. Both are less than friendly with Iran and are contiguous with Iran. Then there's India right around the corner on the other side of Pakistan. Of course we know that Israel has them, 50 to 60 or so I hear.
Then there is the U.S. Navy sitting right off the Iranian Coast, a nation well-known to be no friend of Iran. The Navy either has the nukes or can get them within 12 or so hours. How long would it take the U.S. Air force to deliver a nuclear attack on Iran? The time is measured in hours, not days. And it is clear that America is led by madmen and oil men who have demonstrated that they prefer War to Peace. A nation whose leaders want control of the Middle East. A nation that would rather threaten and practice brinkmanship than talk, since they consider talking to be a reward to their enemies.
If I were an Iranian, I'd be thinking that it's better to die on your feet fighting than to die on your knees begging. The difference is whether you have the weapons you need.
July 20, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Richardxx
Iran has no record of conflict with either Pakistan or India. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is more theoretical than real and is completely directed at India, with good reason.
Iran has good historical reasons to fear the Russians but, in fact, has made no threat against them and has normal relations and strong business ties with them.
Iran's bellicosity has been almost entirely directed at Israel and the United States. It has very good reason to fear the United States but it's people seem to like us. Further, if the leadership of the US were as mad as you claim then the position of Iran is hopeless. The US will destroy its nuclear installations without even thinking twice and there's nothing Iran can do about it. But, of course, that's nonsense. And I have to wonder why it never occurs to you lefties that Iranian escalation is destabilizing when all you can talk about are the destabilizing effects of Israeli and US policies.
Which brings us to Israel - the real object of Iranian hostility, a nation which Iran has repeatedly characterized as evil, immoral, illegitimate. One which should be destroyed, one whose people should be driven from the region. This is not an unpopular position. It is not a position advocated only by a lunatic and unpopular President. Quite the contrary. In support, I refer you to the writings of Masoud Golsorkhi, who is often published in the Guardian.
It should be obvious from this, and from the writings of Christopher Hitchens, Benny Morris, and many, many others that Iran's intentions towards Israel are hostile, aggresive and violent, and that it is developing nuclear weapons in the service of those intentions. For no other reason.
July 20, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran wants to develop nukes in reaction to being threatened by Israel and the US. Benny Morris’ own ravings expose a motivation that any country would have under the threat Iran faces. Morris emphasizes, as all who push for bombing Iran, that they must be attacked before they obtain nuclear capabilities. The implication then is that once they have obtained nukes, they won’t be attacked. Now that’s not to say they are working on nukes. Our intel says otherwise. And they have been working on nuclear power for years, as they have every right to do under the NPT, with our help and encouragement at one time. But deterrence is certainly a motivation to at least let threatening countries think you’re getting nukes. We are forcing them into a corner. What other course do they have?
July 22, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize that Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremberg for planning a "preemptive war."
July 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
No. I don't realize that, but assuming its true its just another example of victor' justice.
Roosevelt would have been hanged for the same crime had we lost. Certainly Chamberlain should have been hanged for his part in the dismemberment of Czeckeslovakia (however you want to label that war) but he was lauded when he returned and suffered disgrace only when Hitler betrayed him as he betrayed the Czechs.
It's time for you to grow up and realize how nasty this world really is.
July 21, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another war in the Middle East would be a fitting götterdämmerung to 8 disastrous years of the George W. Bush administration.
July 20, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t know how mainstream Morris is but if his words “matter” they should raise alarms internationally. Israel is the only country in the region with a real nuclear arsenal and is threatening to use it. Who sounds like the ME madman here? Who is the rogue threat to peace and stability? If anything, the US should be thinking about how it is going to neutralize (and decommission) this out of control state that threatens not just the ME but the whole world. But, of course, Israel’s illegal nuclear arms are not to be discussed.
July 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Don Key
Your link didn't work for me. I'm not sure why (since it seems to be correct) but I found the article by googling "Counterpunch+Benny Morris".
Did you read the whole interview or just that schmuck Shavit's summation? I bet the latter.
Morris is really good. Hard-nosed and tough but right on the mark. I don't expect you political correctniks to agree.
A little background. As both Shavit and Morris note, Zhabotinsky had come to the same conclusions in 1923, with his book "The Iron Wall". What is not mentioned is that Ben-Gurion said the same thing a year earlier in a little known speech. He never publicly said it again, realizing that it was terribly damaging politically. Hertzl was of the same opinion 20 years earlier...but articulated his thoughts only in his diary, never openly and publicly.
July 21, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m familiar with Morris. My question about him being mainstream was facetious- where does that put the mainstream? His documentary historical work has been praised all around, but his positions are something else. That Ben-Gurion or Hertzl agreed with the expulsion of the Palestinians to Bantus or other Arab states is not a defense of either Morris or them.