Madmen: Iran, Israel, America and the Bomb
The stolen Iranian election, and the ugly events that followed it, cannot help but raise new fears about the possibility that Iran will soon join the list of nuclear armed states that includes the United States, United Kingdom, Israel, France, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan.
These fears are nothing new for the neoconservatives who have beaten the drums for war with Iran for years. They are gung ho for war with Iran just as they were gung ho for war with Iraq; they have little regard for the internal situation within the country or for whether Iran is actually seeking nuclear weapons rather than industrial nuclear power. Their ardor for war is visceral.
In fact, virtually all of them expressed support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the June election because they openly feared that his defeat would legitimize a diplomatic approach to Iran. But that does not stop them from using their favored candidate's unholy triumph as justification for a war they would champion regardless of who won the election.
Their hypocrisy is astounding, as is their sheer chutzpah. One would think that after their Iraq disaster, they would feel chastened. So many dead, so little accomplished in a war that they promised would be a wonderful cake walk. But, no, they still loudly promote wars that others fight. Like American Communists back in the 1930's, they have their line and nothing will make them deviate from it -- except a new line.
It is important, however, that we try to look at the Iran threat, such as it is, without focusing unduly on those who endlessly hype it.. And the fact is that the Iranian threat appears more serious today than it did before the election because the regime looks significantly more deranged in July than it did in May. It is simply no longer possible to argue with confidence that Tehran is rational and would accordingly refrain from using a nuclear weapon on Israel. The election fiasco put that argument to rest. Israel's concerns are legitimate.
No, I do not believe that Israel should preemptively attack Iran. I think an Israeli attack would be disastrous, not least for Israel's long-term prospects for survival. More immediately, it would jeopardize America's interests in the region -- above all the lives of 130,000 Americans right next door. Nor would an Israeli attack end Iran's nuclear program. At best, it would slow things down. Diplomacy (with teeth), on the other hand, is infinitely more likely to prevent development of Iranian nuclear weapons.
But I do think that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is something we must try to do. It is no longer possible to trust the Iranian regime not to take actions that others consider suicidal. Simply put, the current regime -- and its front man, Ahmadinejad - are not rational.
If the people running Iran were rational - if they were interested only in preserving their regime - they would not have stolen the election for Ahmadinejad (with a fabricated landslide, no less).
They would have understood, having hand-picked Ahmadinejad's main opponent, Mir Hussein Mousavi, that he would threaten neither the continuation of the regime nor Iran's nuclear program. They would have understood that their regime would be more, not less, secure if they allowed an election that looked relatively free.
Instead, they stole the election, sent thugs out to crush demonstrators, and probably ensured that their regime would not survive in the long-term. Their behavior on all matters relating to the election was irrational and just plain stupid.
If they were rational - if they were interested only in preserving their regime - they would either have dumped Ahmadinejad or, at the very least, prohibited him from blabbing about the Holocaust. Every time Mad Mahmoud indulges in his penchant for Holocaust denial, he makes the regime look ridiculous.
Yes, he's a fool. This is a man who told an audience at Columbia University that there are no gay people in Iran (at the same time that his regime was executing gay teenagers). But even a fool can be made to understand that mocking the slaughter of the Jews does not advance Iran's interests. On the contrary, it makes Iran look like something it isn't -- a successor in spirit to Nazi Germany.
If they were rational -- if they were interested only in preserving their regime -- the people running Iran would not allow anyone in authority to threaten Israel's existence.
Binyamin Netanyahu, like other Israeli hawks, pretends that Israel is helpless in the face of Iranian saber rattling. But he knows that it isn't and the people running Iran also know it.
The Israelis will do whatever it takes to preserve their state (it is not only Likudniks who pledge that "Masada will not fall again"). Independent analysts say not only that Israel has some 200 nuclear weapons but that it also has a second strike capacity (from submarine based launchers).
That means that even if Tehran was able to deliver a blow that took out most of Israel's population, Israel would be able to respond in such a way that Iran would essentially be destroyed as a society. In other words, threatening Israel with annihilation is itself irrational unless the goal (wholly irrational) is to prompt Israel into attacking first.
But that gets to the key question? Is the Iranian regime so irrational that it would go beyond threats and actually risk everything with a nuclear attack?
Probably not. But there is no way to know for sure. This is not to say that there is something unique to fanatical Iranians. There are plenty of people in Israel (especially in the haredi neighborhoods of Jerusalem, in Hebron, and in the settlements) who would push the button to eradicate the Arabs if they could. They would happily go down in a blaze of holy glory just to take the Palestinians with them. But these fanatics are not (yet) running Israel.
But there are fanatics running Iran. This is not to say that everyone in charge is a fanatic - in fact, there is apparently a struggle going on right now between various factions - but there clearly are fanatics within the regime. It wasn't the moderates who stole the election and sent the basij out into the streets to smash heads.
That is why Israelis believe they are facing a serious problem. But, as was the case with the first Iraq war, Israel's direct involvement does not contribute to the solution.
Israel, because of its history, is the last country that can do that. To put it simply, it has no credibility when it comes to undertaking wars that would kill Muslims or take out an Islamic regime. Many, and not just in the Muslim world, view Israel's stance toward Iran as heavily influenced by its fear that a nuclear Iran by definition would make it impossible for Israel to do whatever it feels like doing in the region.
That may not be true, but the perception is real. One is unlikely to find a Muslim who does not believe it simply because Israel has acted for 41 years as if it could do anything it likes in the name of security. No wonder its legitimate fears about Iran is viewed as "crying wolf."
The most helpful thing Israel can do is to allow America (and the other major powers) to deal with this problem. Neither Israel -- nor its tacit allies in the struggle to block a nuclear Iran, starting with the Saudis -- can deter an Iran hellbent on achieving nuclear weapons. But the United States and our allies -- working with the so far recalcitrant Russians and Chinese -- can. It is Obama's job to lead. It is Israel's job to let him.
When did he deny the Holocaust? Somebody give me the exact quote.
Pointing out the obvious fact that the Jews had greater claim to a chunk of Germany than a chunk of Palestine is not Holocaust denial.
"If they were rational -- if they were interested only in preserving their regime -- the people running Iran would not allow anyone in authority to threaten Israel's existence."
Did he threaten Israel's existence, or express desire to see the racist, Zionist regime replaced?
"Wiping Israel off the map" is generally considered a mistranslation by the same forces that gave us the "Axis of Evil" speech that put him in the presidency in the first place.
I support a one man, one vote style democracy in Israel/Palestine. I don't think the Jews have an eternal right to an eternally Jewish majority state. Such a concept requires ethnic cleansing anytime the Arab or other minority populations get too big.
Do you support ethnic cleansing when demographics get uncomfortable, or is a more realistic solution required?
Is a "Jewish State" good for controlling Jewish fanaticism, or does it encourage it?
And after an attack on Iran, you know who would suffer disproportionately in the global economic collapse that would immediately follow?
Little black children like those barred from the swimming pool in PA yesterday.
M.J., won't you please think of the children?
July 10, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Guardian helps us break through the neocon propaganda, and puts M.J.s mind at ease:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
July 10, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran has no secret weapons program, so this ia all hypothetical, right?
MJ: A nuclear Iran does scare the West because it mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and the end of Western leverage, imperialism, and extortion in that region. A Muslim world that says "no thanks" to forced prchases of T-bills, ludicious (and useless) weapons sales, and extortionate contracts with Western contractors.
Let's not dress up this as some type of defense of freedom. Or decency. It is neither.
July 10, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mythbuster, I don't disagree. But I am talking about Israel's fears.
They are genuinely worried.
Not that it excuses the terrible things they keep doing to the Palestinians. On the contrary, I believe that if they would end the damn occupation, they would infinitely improve their position vis a vis Iran.
July 10, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
People were genuinely worried about Saddam Hussein after 9/11, what with his anthrax and mushroom clouds and aluminum tubes and suicidal nature. The second he got nukes, he was going to send them our way, despite guaranteed annihilation.
Is any of this ringing a bell? Of course it is.
July 10, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll accept that the vast majority of Israelis "genuinely" fear an existential threat from Iran. How could they not, since it's been drummed into them by their political leaders for at least a decade?
That doesn't make it a realistic fear -- and certainly not one the U.S. should frame its Mideast policy around.
Ahmadinejad is the mirror image of Netanyahu, building support by stoking distrust and fear of the enemy. Yes, he has questioned the holocaust, thumbing his nose at the West and its sensibilities.
But no, despite its constant repetition in Western media, he never did threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or kill all Jews. That's pure neocon spin.
Khamenei has publicly ruled out a nuclear-weapons program, and the IAEA has found no evidence of one, despite Western "suspicions."
Here's another shocker: Despite all the twittering and punditry, no-one has produced any concrete evidence that the election was actually stolen.
Then there's that "brutal" crackdown. Over several weeks of mass, sometimes violent demonstrations, it appears 20 people have been killed -- nearly half of them on the government side. That's not exactly Tienanmen Square, folks.
But these recent events lead MJ to conclude that Iran's leadership is fanatical and irrational, and proof that Dennis Ross's "all-stick" approach to diplomacy is the way to go. (MJ doesn't mention Ross, but that's who he's siding with.)
A simple, basic truth: Israel and the Saudis (those unlikely bedfellows) both fear Iran NOT because of its hypothetical nuclear weaponry but because it is a natural and logical U.S. ally in the region and so threatens their own comfy spheres of influence. That's the real story here.
July 10, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, facts are inconvenient things. You will never, ever get a job at CNN or Fox.
July 10, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the endorsement, Buster. I hadn't really considered applying.
July 10, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to make my point perfectly clear: The reason so many right-wingers (despite their crocodile tears about democracy) wanted Ahmadinejad to win, and still want diplomacy to fail, and want an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is to solidify the mullahs' hold on power, to keep Iran a declared and implacable enemy.
That's why the "Swiss fax" propsing a grand bargain was scupulously ignored; the Swiss were chewed out for even passing on the Iranian message.
The Bush admin's $400-million destabilization program, which funds Sunni terrorist groups like Jundallah, is not really aimed at "regime change" in Iran. It is aimed at making rapprochement with the West too big and distasteful a pill for Iranians to swallow.
July 10, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't know how 'empirical' this information is but I am at You Tube and I see ordinary Iranians and Israelis reaching out to each other every day. And the message universally is "I don't hate you and hope for the only the best for you and all of us".
People do not generally hate other people they don't know and the alleged differences are generally created by the governments. For the longest time in the US we were told the Russian people had only one goal to kill American people...and of course the people believed it. Why would our government ever lie to us? (the sheep ask themselves quizzically when pondering the motives of their 'protectors')
July 10, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Ephraim Sneh said essentially that an Iranian weapon could destroy Israel through emmigration, not war.
There is a difference between self-defense, which of course Irsael has a right to, and strategic control and dominance. When you define "defense" as dominance, everything is a threat.
The reality is that Iran is a great and fascinating nation. It could--and should--serve as a bullwork against Wahhabism Extremism (the real threat to modern civilization). It is the future. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Kings are not.
MJ, I'm just so off the reservation when it comes to demanding justice from our enemies, but overlooking cruelty by our friends. As Reza Aslan said recently, Iranians fear that their country is becoming Egypt. I totally agree.
July 10, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too
July 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are the people running the current regime in Tehran 'fanatical'? They are despots, thugs whose power is being called into legitimacy within Iran but I don't know if they are 'fanatics'.
That being said I do completely agree with your assessment that because the election was rigged, and very poorly at that, that this regime's days are numbered. But I do not think the Persians hate the Israelis. The main problem is with the Saudis and what is being taught in the madrassas by that branch of Islam in that country and then exported. The main problem is the 'friends' that Israel's closest ally has in the region and not the boogeymen that the neocons try to create...
July 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
I don't think the Iranian people are interested in war with anyone, including the Saudis. I think a great nation's government has been hijacked by religious nuts. I think the same is happening in Israel.
I am so grateful for the First Amendment.
Freedom of religion should be freedom from religion. Practice it at home, if you like, but nowhere else.
I wonder if there is a single country in the wotld where organized religion has made a positive contribution to governance. I doubt it.
July 10, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed MJ. The cause of most of the problems around the globe is by people who try to inject their religious beliefs into the governing of their country. How many have died at the hands of people saying they were doing it in their god's name? I can't think of one country where mixing religion and governing turned out well.
Actually I think the Saudis are more wary of the Iranians then they are of Israel. And the Iranians, Persians, are culturally closer to the Turks than they are the Saudis. But in the case of the Middle-East even if the mullahs are booted out of power sometimes the arab nationalists can be just as bad. Look at what Saddam did to the Shi'a and Kurds in Iraq, the war he waged against Iran and his invasion of Kuwait. I hate to say it, because I do think they are thugs, but he almost made the mullahs in Iran look like pacifists. So when the regime in Tehran is eventually toppled what will replace it? The only little reassurance I have is the fact, like I said earlier, that by their nature the Persians are not extremists.
But when it comes to the 1st amendment it seems there is a chill in the air when there is a honest discussion about Israel and the policies of that country. A chill I know you have experienced first hand and often.
July 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, you have no idea. But it's changing. The good guys are stronger, the bad guys are weaker.
Nobody buys into David and Goliath anymore -- with Israel playing David. That narrative has been replaced.
July 10, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice how opponents of Iran end up defending the Saudis? Who cares about the fears of the Saudi Royal Family!
My sister recently returned from Iran. She found the people very friendly, out-going, and educated. Particularly, the women. And 54% of Iranian college students are women. The Islamic Revolution is educating its people to ultimately reject the Islamic Revolution. Let's not get in the way.
But we call the Land Where Women Can't Get Drivers Licenses (Saudi), a "moderate" Arab state.
And the Arabs notice.....
July 10, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on how immoderate that Saudi society is mythbuster.
But since they have oil and we have companies that are making money off of that oil they are ok in the eyes of the US government...and Iran is bad, mainly because they wanted the US out of the country. Same thing with Cuba and now Venezuela. Once a country wants to control their own resources they invariably find themselves at odds with the US and our corporately owned government. And we have aided and abetted some very bad apples over the years.
But I am digressing from the point of MJ's post...so this will have to be a discussion for another thread.
But I will add one thing...many people in the US who say they are concerned for Israel's welfare are very disingenuous in their concern. They are only concerned about what is the US's best interests and not Israel's. Peace is what is in Israel's best interest...and not allowing Israel to be used by neocons as a pawn in a larger US regional strategy. I feel they would willingly sacrifice Israeli lives if it meant furthering US interests. With friends like neocons who would ever need enemies?
July 10, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also take the view that the future State of Palestine should have a 20% Jewish population like the State of Israel has a 20% Palestinian population. In that way, Israel really has an interest in the Palestinian state succeeding.
Of course, PM Fayad has already suggested allowing the settlers to become Palestinian citizens. But following the US media, most people probably wouldn't know that.
July 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting but I doubt that would ever fly with the settlers because they seem to be most hardcore about all the land being Israel's and only Israel's land.
But point taken about how it, and a whole host of other important issues, is being covered in the US media...I fully agree.
July 10, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was gonna say "I can imagine' but I really can't say that MJ. I get a little taste of it here watching some of the comments made to you but that is probably just the tip of the mother of all icebergs.
The thing is when someone criticizes Israel, even if the person is Jewish like you, it is somehow always construed as an attack on Judaism, and Jews, and not a criticism of the nationalistic agenda of conservatives in Israeli society...and to me eqauting the 2 is like comparing apples and oranges.
Keep on fighting MJ...I think your way is the right way to keep Israel safe and secure for the long term. Just like the mullahs will fall in Iran because of their heavy handed use of force against dissident groups there, Israel will never be safe and secure by using force and intimidation in their struggles with the Palestinians.
July 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday marked the 10 year anniversary of a major student uprising in Iran.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/tl03.html
After two more years of repression and reform efforts within the system, the protests went mainstream in 2001:
"Heightened tensions exploded in October 2001 when hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets for weeks, clamoring for democratic freedom and engaging in violent clashes with police. The demonstrations were significant not only for their size but also for the participation of ordinary citizens, whose presence signaled the broadening of the opposition. Strikes by teachers, workers and nurses, attended by thousands, throughout 2001 and 2002, further reflected that resentment toward the regime was no longer confined to the students."
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, written by neocon David Frum, did great damage to the popular resistance, as did the constant threats and rumors of invasion by the neocons.
Just as these neocon dirtbags wished for Ahmadinejad's re-election last month, so too did they hope their bellicosity in 2002-2003 would have the effect of making Iranian resistance look like American tools. The Neocons got their wish of pushing Iran rightward, when Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005.
For all we know, Iran would already have overthrown the mullahs by now, or have been well on their way.
For all we know, Iran would be the healthy, western leaning democracy it was in 1953, before Eisenhower authorized the CIA's Operation Ajax and the installation of the Shah.
THE ONLY REASON THESE RADICAL MULLAHS ARE IN POWER TODAY IS BECAUSE OF THE REACTION AGAINST THE CORRUPT, BRUTAL SHAH AND US/UK INTERVENTION.
Lets try leaving them alone, and letting them modernize with pride and dignity.
CIA fingerprints all over this current resistance doesn't give the opposition pride and dignity, nor do constant war drums beating by Israel and the U.S.
Iraq was intentionally allowed to fall into chaos, while our soldiers were told to stand by and let it all happen.
Did the toppling of Saddam combined with the intentional destruction of the country, and sale of its industry to western corporate giants do anything to enhance Iraqi pride?
What makes you think the decision makers running the chaos of a post-apocolyptic Iran would be any different?
Western interests are Western interests, and Iranian pride, independence, and blood mean little compared to that.
Iran can be a strong, independent power run by moderates. The key is staying out of the way and letting them do it, instead of drooling over its assets and strategic location under the guise of compassion.
July 10, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a good PBS Frontline documentary, "Showdown With Iran":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
"Before invading Iraq, the Bush administration rebuffed a series of overtures from Iran's reformist government -- among them offers to help the U.S. stabilize Iraq after the invasion. After the invasion a strange fax arrived in Washington. It was a secret proposal for a grand bargain resolving all outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran's support for terrorism and its nuclear program. But opinions differed on how serious the offer was. The State Department thought the reformists were politically weak and promising more than they could deliver. And the White House, newly victorious in Iraq, saw no need to negotiate with Iran. The "grand bargain" fax never received a reply.
Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival, believes the Bush administration's confrontational approach discredited Iran's reformists and inadvertently helped bring the new hard-line government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. "The wars of 2001 and 2003 have fundamentally changed the Middle East to Iran's advantage," he says. "The dam that was containing Iran has been broken."
July 10, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I said Bill is I don't know what the Iranians will get in the wake of what they have now. Could be better could be worse but we cannot with certainty say they will be 'moderate'. And even if they are how that will play out internationally. But bottom line, and I have consistently said this, is the US should not directly involve ourselves in Iran's internal affairs.
July 10, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And even if they are how that will play out internationally. But bottom line, and I have consistently said this, is the US should not directly involve ourselves in Iran's internal affairs."
Agreed that we should stay out of their internal affairs.
And it's very safe to say that as long as Iran is independent of the emerging, intertwined world order, it will play out badly internationally.
July 10, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe badly for the actors in the world order who feel they are Masters of the Universe and get to dictate what that world order is. And, yeah, if they get their way it'll work out badly for the Iranians. Never forget in the minds of the powers that be the oil that is under Iran isn't the Iranian's oil...it is our oil that the Iranians just happen, by circumstance, to be on top of.
July 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if there is a single country in the wotld where organized religion has made a positive contribution to governance. I doubt it.
i nominate tibet, prior to the chinese takeover.
July 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Tibet before the Chinese takeover was far from ideal. But we like the myth.....
July 10, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
i did some research and you are correct.
Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
hollywood propaganda worked on me!
July 10, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has illegal nukes, regularly attacks her neighbors, and just slaughtered 1,600 civilians living in a giant prison. Israel is far more destabilizing for the region than Iran, and may be judged irrational: how can she be so paranoid with dozens of nukes?
And it is Israel that threatens of bombing Iran every few months, not the other way around. Until Israel gives up her nukes, the arms race will continue in the Middle East. Imposing sanctions on peaceful Iran while Israel builds ever more nukes and never hesitates to wage war is the very definition of hypocrisy.
July 10, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
rosenberg yesterday: I'm no Netanyahu fan but there is no way [the prime minister of Israel] would invoke Nazism to a German leader unless he was flipping out.
rosenberg today: It is simply no longer possible to argue with confidence that Tehran is rational and would accordingly refrain from using a nuclear weapon on Israel. The election fiasco put that argument to rest. If the people running Iran were rational - if they were interested only in preserving their regime - they would not have stolen the election for Ahmadinejad.
rosenberg tomorrow: obama is a madman. if he thinks it "prudent to consider alternative scenarios in which Iran achieves a nuclear weapons capability", he's a looney tune in a nuclear cartoon. bibi's right. israel must take out all iranian nukes and/or nuclear capability ASAP. it's in america's best interest.
shorter: bibi channeling jack torrance with responsibility for 200-250 nukes? fine. ahmadinejad spoofing george w. bush (stealing an election) separate and apart from iran's quixotic quest for nuclear parity -- nuts.
the only thing more madly alarming than a bibi or ahmadi flashing nuclear thongs is an m.j. compulsively flogging his/this blog.
excerpted from Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran, Yaphe and Lutes, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University; McNair Paper 69, 2005.
[begin snips]
[I]t would be prudent to consider alternative scenarios in which Iran achieves a nuclear weapons capability, either overtly or similar to the Israeli policy of nuclear ambiguity. Furthermore, given regional dynamics and national (or regime) security perspectives, the proliferation of similar capabilities around the region within a decade must also be considered likely and should be addressed. While not the preferred outcome, from the Israeli perspective, “thinking about the unthinkable” is an important exercise in planning for the future.
In the context of a multipolar nuclear Middle East and the need for a credible second-strike capability, maintenance of Israel’s policy of deliberate [nuclear] ambiguity would become increasingly difficult. Credibility and communications [are] central components of stable deterrence, and a more overt and visible nuclear weapons capability [by Israel] may be seen as necessary to avoid Iranian (and wider regional) misperceptions, particularly given the isolation of decisionmakers in Iran.
[P]rospects of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and wider regional proliferation have [also] revived unofficial discussions of the costs and benefits of different formal security alliances, including a U.S.-Israeli defense treaty and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO ) membership. [Although] the option of NATO membership is perhaps more symbolic and less tangible in terms of direct benefits, [the] development of formal security links to both the United States and Europe may provide a useful alternative,
at little cost for Israel.
One of the proposed means to prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is a grand agreement that would include, in addition to resolution of U.S.-Iran issues, a tradeoff involving Israel’s nuclear deterrent option. The range of such proposals is quite wide, including some that envision a freeze on the Israeli nuclear program and accession to the NPT as a nuclear weapons state. At the other end of the scale, there is also discussion of Israel relinquishing its nuclear capability by joining the NPT and submitting to IAEA safeguards as a non–nuclear weapons state, or the development of a Middle East nuclear weapons–free zone.
In the long term, however, and assuming that the region survives the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the potential for negotiation of a Middle East nuclear weapons–free zone is likely to increase. In contrast to the international and universal arms control framework— a system of mutual inspection based on a specially tailored verification regime, could, in theory, be successful.
In the process of learning to develop and manage a stable deterrence relationship, direct communication links will eventually be established. The populations of the respective players, including Iran, may go through a process similar to that of the United States and Soviet Union, as well as Europe during the Cold War, and demand measures that reduce the risks of mutual assured destruction. This process will be assisted by, and could also lead to, internal political changes, including democratization,
in order to create more responsive and accountable governments (although, realistically, the politics of extremist nationalism and religious exclusivity will remain very powerful forces).
[end snips]
July 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to read your response while stoned and listening to Jefferson Airplane.
July 10, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I nominate " White Rabbit" for your listening pleasure.
July 10, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh...I really like the Airplane MJ, especially at those 'special times' of the day, and I have a thing for Grace. But lately when I relax with Mother Nature I am digging Hawkwind and some 'Space Rock'.
July 10, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we should use diplomacy and we can not let Iran get the bomb. So what happens when negotiations fail? Sanctions? And what happens when that fails? The answer is we do nothing.
So aren't you really saying we have no choice but to let Iran have the bomb becasue I am against a preemptive millitary strike for any reason? At least be honest about it.
July 10, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what is going to happen. And I think, in the end, we'll all live with an Iranian bomb just like we live with an Israeli, Pakistani, Indian and probably North Korean bomb. .
I think we should try to prevent it through diplomacy. Period.
July 10, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If the people running Iran were rational - if they were interested only in preserving their regime - they would not have stolen the election for Ahmadinejad."
Sorry, MJ, but it's just not that simple. It's one thing to misjudge the consequences of falsifying an election outcome. (There are many historical examples of regimes whose leaders, while not "irrational," were deaf and dumb to popular sentiment.) It's a whole other thing to engage in such obviously pointlessly reckless behavior as an attack on Israel. "Irrational" implies a very high probability that the Iranian regime would engage in such behavior, and there is no evidence of that. By characterizing it as "irrational" you're conceding about 60% of the neo-cons' argument.
July 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Iran acquired the bomb, and the settlers in the West Bank fled back to Brooklyn and L.A., it would be win-win for the whole world- excluding Exxon, Aramco, and mid-east dictatorships.
Maybe the U.S. and Iran could be very good friends, under the condition that the mullahs improve civil rights, stop domestic spying, and stop indefinite detentions, torture, and executions.
Hell, maybe the U.S. could do the same, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt, in an effort to maintain their influence with the U.S., could join in the humanitarian fun!
July 10, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think we should try to prevent it through diplomacy. Period."
Fair enough, but it contradicts this:
"But I do think that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is something we must do. It is no longer possible to trust the Iranian regime not to take actions that others consider suicidal. Simply put, the current regime -- and its front man, Ahmadinejad - are not rational."
You don't mean "must" in the sentence above. You mean we "must" try diplomacy and if diplomacy fails we "must" do nothing and allow a regime you refer to as "suicidal" to have nuclear weapons.
If that is your opinion, I have absolutely no problem with it. I assume you believe they can still be deterred--which is a perfectly legitimate point of view. However, your opinion can not be that Iran "must not" get nuclear weapons.
July 10, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. Thanks. I'll fix the original.
July 10, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The willingness of the Iranian regime to use electoral fraud and repressive force to stay in power is not an indicator of irrationality or fanaticism. If it was, we would have been in imminent danger of a Soviet nuclear strike in 1968 or a Chinese one in 1989. Authoritarianism is common worldwide; suicidal nuclear aggression fortunately isn't.
July 10, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran is a theocracy. Theocrats often behave in a manner not driven by realpolitik. Instead, they act out the will of God. And anyone would be a fool to allow this sort of mentality the capacity to stockpile nuclear weapons.
i would suggest that even israel give up its nuclear weapons if they want peace.
July 12, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink