Juan Cole has a piece up about the possibility of the United States or Israel bombing Iran. He concludes that it is very unlikely to happen, that Israel (and in particular Netanyahu) would never do it without getting the green-light from the United States, and that Israeli intelligence is deeply skeptical about how effective such an action would be.
But Cole is anti-Israel. So the anti-Israel position is that Israel is a normal ally/client-state that considers the wishes of the United States and is inclined to think carefully before starting another major conflict in its region. The pro-Israel position is that that Israel is a treacherous, rogue state that would happily undermine the United States to pursue a paranoid, Cheney-style foreign policy.
We are wrong to talk about bombing Iran because it will never happen, the whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. At the same time, we are wrong to accuse Jeff Goldberg of bullshitting when he says there’s a 50-50 chance that it will happen. And finally, only an Israel-hater would oppose American neocons’ efforts to drag Israel into an unnecessary bloody conflict.
I hope that clears everything up because this is my last post on the subject.
cleek
snark too thick. nothing is clear.
but again, FUCK GOLDBERG
Daddy-O
Cole is anti-Israel? No. Cole is reality-biased.
The only folks who AREN’T anti-Israel are the neoconservatives, the religiously insane right wing Christians, settlers and religiously insane right wing Jews–to a certain incredibly tiny segment of the population that just happens to include Jeff Goldberg.
To quote the Worst President Ever: Who cares what he thinks?
Linda Featheringill
Aside from the moral question of bombing Iran because of what they might do in the future, there remains the practical question:
Since Iran is probably not likely to tolerate a bomb-and-run wih no follow up, somebody will have to fight over it, in Iran or somewhere else. Who would this be?
Israel’s military is kept pretty busy close to home and the US military is already stretched to the breaking point.
Why would we start a war when we don’t have the means to fight it?
That would be stupid. Would the neo-cons support something so stupid?
cmorenc
@DougJ
Um…not to be the grammar police, but you failed to make a complete sentence here, turning what promised to be a clear statement into gibberish. Not sure whether you need a bit more coffee or a bit less to get your writing game on this morning.
Chad S
Goldberg’s piece was pretty clearly a message piece from the Israelis and the US gov to put more pressure on Iran.
We’re not going to bomb Iran’s nuke program. If we could have taken it out with air strikes, we would have in 2003/2004. We’re sending spies to screw it up, and there’s been reports that their equipment is mysteriously not working properly.
Jeff
@Linda Featheringill:
Why would we start a war when we don’t have the means to fight it?
That would be stupid. Would the neo-cons support something so stupid?
yes
This is another SATSQ
El Cruzado
@Daddy-O: Anti-Israel means whoever disagrees with self-proclaimed pro-Israel folks, the same way that a liberal is whoever disagrees with self-proclaimed conservatives.
I’m pretty sure that’s the semantics DougJ was deploying.
DougJ
@cmorenc:
Thanks. Sorry about that. No coffee yet.
TooManyJens
@Linda Featheringill:
That’s snark, right? Sometimes my meter gets a little out of whack.
Amanda in the South Bay
I managed to sit out last weeks Iranopalooza here, since at this moment in my life I really can’t stand too much anger and bitterness (snark, yes).
So let me split the difference. Goldberg is a lying sociopathic piece of shit who can’t be trusted, and this all seems suspiciously like the punditry leafingbup to Iraq. Frame the issue in such a way that every decent person must support intervention.
At the same time, if nuclear non proliferation is going to have any meaning, there has to be consequences for Iran building a bomb. I’m pretty sure a single nuke isn’t going to wipe Israel out (Israeli BMD, civil defense, and the closeness of Israeli Jews and Muslims living next to each other means there is really only one major city that pro can be targeted) but I do worry about greater ME stability, cause it’s not as if there’s any religious differences between Iran and the rest of the ME that might spark tensions, eg?
In a sane world on which Iraq had never happened…really the biggest fallout from Iraq had been the discrediting of pre-emptive military action. I guess that’s my way if saying that burying our heads in the sand is wrong, and I’m more than willing to listen to fresh arguements from people who aren’t neocons with an atrocious track record, or people who have served/are serving in the IDF.
Silver Owl
Goldberg, a silver spoon fed twit.
Amanda in the South Bay
Sorry for the poor spelling, that’s the iPod Touch for ya.
soonergrunt
I love the taste of Wingnut tears!
Petraeus cites Bush era shortcomings in Afghanistan
I’ll also note that a certain class of political reporter who desperately wanted Petraeus to run for President one day has to be disappointed as well. There has been ongoing speculation that GEN Petraeus would eventually run for office as a republican, in spite of his continued insistence that he has no political ambitions. Well, the republicans won’t have him now. He’s not crazy enough for them
A side note, the Army Times and McClatchey have both reported that several members of GEN McChrystal’s former staff are under investigation by Army IG and by CENTCOM for possible violations of the UCMJ in connection with the Rolling Stone affair. The relevant articles would be:
ART 88; Contempt Towards Officials and
ART 133; Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman
JITC
Really good point about what constitutes being “pro” Israel. While there are strong passions, emotions and (usually justified) fears that Israel faces, I believe they will act rationally to the Iranian threat. I guess to the Goldbergs and Kristols that makes me “anti” Israel too.
Klaud
It’s good to assume that everyone acts rationally, because precarious situations in international politics have never devolved into bloody messes because of the actions of extremists.
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: Good and good.
StevefromOhio
@Linda Featheringill:
You’d have to re-institute the draft. Any action is likely to coincide with the US’s drawdown from Iraq, so some manpower would be freed up from that.
But what would Iran’s likely response be? It would probably act against Israel by funding and equipping paramilitary proxy forces like Hezbollah.
AhabTRuler
@Amanda in the South Bay:
What an incredibly foolish and uninformed thing to say. The biggest fallout of the Iraq war is the horrific humanitarian cost, a burden carried far more by the Iraqis than will ever be borne by the US.
Your attitude does seem to indicate that a million or so dead Persians doesn’t seem to really be a concern, at least insofar as strategic planning is concerned.
Amanda in the South Bay
Oh please, stfu. I was going to anti war rallies back when I was actually in the Army, so please, paint me as a war whore for trying to impart some nuance into the discussion.
I see that trying to impart subtlety and nuance gets you framed as a wannabe mass murderer around here.
soonergrunt
@AhabTRuler: I’m pretty sure that she didn’t mean it like that dude.
I read it to mean effect on US/western foreign policy. I’d still say that preemptive action should never be considered a viable option.
Anoniminous
@Linda Featheringill:
At 20,000 feet, where the Air Force lives, all you ever need to do is “bomb ’em till they glow and use their butts for landing lights.” Shock and Awe — if you’ll recall — swept the US military to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DougJ
@soonergrunt:
Thanks for the links and GOOD LUCK.
JGabriel
Linda Featheringill:
Iraq.
.
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: I guess that depends on how you define preemptive. If troops are massing at your border, crossing that border and engaging those troops at a time and place of your choosing is not a problem. On the other hand, attacking a country because it might someday choose to attack you, not a good idea. To me, an attack on Iran is closer to the latter.
Stillwater
this is my last post on the subject.
I, for one, hope it isn’t. The Goldberg article is like a controlled experiment revealing the effects of pure propaganda on opinion-shapers, policy makers and the unwashed. It’s also a snapshot into how the game is played, and how allegiances are formed. There will be the hawks, advocating the use of extreme force, and doves who reluctantly agree that, while force is never a first option, it is necessary since other options aren’t practical (the propaganda here will be that sanctions, inspections, etc. have never prevented arms build up). Arguments that force will only exacerbate ‘existential threats’ against Israel and incur huge political and economic costs for the US and Israel, will be accepted, but regarded as insufficient: the cost, we will be told, is worth it (something like the Cheney one percent doctrine will apply here). Moralists who argue that an unprovoked military strike and the ensuing death and destruction is morally wrong and/or illegal will be ignored (Bush called these folks a ‘special interest group’).
For my part, I don’t think this propaganda play is over: there are too may powerful factions who benefit from striking Iran. And Goldberg will have a follow-up soon, very consciously constructed around how much his prior post moved public and elite opinion. Other serious writers will chime in, expressing some reluctance in admitting that, yes, Goldberg’s arguments are persuasive.
I say, stock up on pop-corn and sodas and watch the tail begin to wag the whole pack of dogs (or the degree to which this happens). We can even take bets on outcomes – might as well make it interesting
since there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it either way.Oooops! I mean, CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW!!!soonergrunt
For the reasons I articulated in that post the other day, I just don’t see a war or even a limited bombing campaign by US or Israel vs. Iran.
I’d note however that Israel is not the only country in that region that is very concerned about the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, and most of the Arab countries are pretty concerned about this.
Anoniminous
@Amanda in the South Bay:
It’s a Open Secret building atomic weapons, once you’ve decided to spend the bucks, is pretty much a Cut-n-Paste operation. And for the average nation-state the bucks aren’t all that much of a problem.
What is not Cut-n-Paste and is incredibly difficult to build are:
1. CIC – Command, Intelligence, and Control systems on the strategic, theater, and tactical levels
2. Delivery Systems
3. Targeting Systems
and without those nukes are a PITA and as much a danger to the country as to their perceived or real enemies.
GregB
This posts needs a little musical interlude.
Take it away Johnny.
soonergrunt
@Omnes Omnibus: That is an important distinction, and you are right to bring it up.
Troops massing on the border–a country can justify their preemptive attack in the world community by exposing some of the same intelligence that they had.
Attacking a country because they may, at some point in the future, have a capability? Bullshit.
JGabriel
Amanda in the South Bay:
By all reports, Iran has not built a nuclear bomb. What’s your source for that assumption?
I doubt very much we’d be talking about attacking Iran if they actually had a nuke already, c.f. North Korea and Pakistan.
.
Just Some Fuckhead
People act like the second Iranian revolution isn’t working. We just need to wear more green.
Anoniminous
@soonergrunt:
The US Intelligence community has operated under “capability,” not “intentions,” for 60 years. They assume if an entity is capable of doing something they intend to do it.
This tendenz to paranoid schizophrenia explains much.
demo woman
Doug is no longer going to post on Iran and it’s only August 15th. Everyone knows that you don’t promote war in August.
Omnes Omnibus
@soonergrunt: I believe the distinction is between preemptive and preventative wars. However, at the moment, I cannot I cannot recall which is which and I am in the middle of grilling chicken breasts so I don’t have time to look it up, so no link.
Anoniminous
@Omnes Omnibus:
At your service.
Roger Moore
You left out the part about it being unlikely to be effective. Or is that what you meant by “Cheney-style”?
JGabriel
Anoniminous:
Really? I was under the impression that triggering mechanisms were still pretty difficult to master – see for example the low yield of North Korea’s 2006 test. The 2009 test appears to have been more successful for NK, but first test’s low yield and the three year gap between the two tests both suggest that building one of these things isn’t exactly Cut-n-Paste.
.
Turbulence
@Amanda in the South Bay: At the same time, if nuclear non proliferation is going to have any meaning, there has to be consequences for Iran building a bomb.
The consequences are specified in the non-proliferation treaty. They’re basically….not much. More importantly, Iran can legally withdraw from the non proliferation treaty with a few months notice and then….there are no consequences.
What I’m saying here is that if we’re going to impose massive economy crippling sanctions against Iran, we have to have some legal basis for doing so. Some basis that is besides “might makes right” or “we’re big and powerful and we can cut deals so we’re entitled to make you suffer”. What is that legal basis? I’m pretty sure it is not the non proliferation treaty. If it really is “might makes right” I want us to be honest about that. I want us to say, openly, “we are going to make Iranian civilians suffer because we have decided that Iran cannot have weapons that Americans and Israelis have”. And once we say that, we have to agree that it is perfectly OK for other countries to say “we are going to make Israeli civilians suffer because we have decided that Israel cannot have weapons that Americans have”.
I’m pretty sure a single nuke isn’t going to wipe Israel out (Israeli BMD, civil defense, and the closeness of Israeli Jews and Muslims living next to each other means there is really only one major city that pro can be targeted) but I do worry about greater ME stability, cause it’s not as if there’s any religious differences between Iran and the rest of the ME that might spark tensions, eg?
I think this is not a big issue because Israel has secondary and tertiary strike capability (nuclear missiles, bombers, and submarines). That means that even if Israel were blown off the map, Israeli nuclear weapons could still destroy Iran.
Ramiah Ariya
@Amanda in the South Bay:
There is international law, and aggressive war is a crime against humanity. Even if Iran develops a weapon, as long as it is not pointed at the USA or Israel; and you don’t have proof that they are mobilising and planning to use it on the USA or Israel – nobody has the right to bomb them. What you have in these bombing speculations, is a rogue state and its intelligentsia and media, planning crimes against humanity, because they have no accountability. They have suffered none for their last excursion.
The USA can “preempt” all you want against China or Russia, if you dare. It is telling that they are planning this against a country with no capability to hit back, while invoking some kind of preemptive war rationale.
Turbulence
@AhabTRuler: What an incredibly foolish and uninformed thing to say. The biggest fallout of the Iraq war is the horrific humanitarian cost, a burden carried far more by the Iraqis than will ever be borne by the US.
Um, aren’t you being a bit of a dick? Seriously.
Of course the million dead Iraqis are the most significant outcome of the war. But in political terms for the average American, they don’t exist. Politically speaking, the biggest fallout may well be that unilateral military action has been discredited. I’m not sure that’s right, but it is clearly not crazy and there’s no reason to read Amanda’s statements in such incredibly narrow ways so as to get massively offended.
Ramiah Ariya
I just want to point out that Iran faces an existential threat right now, from Israel (as shown by Goldberg’s article) and from the USA (whose leaders have declared Iran their enemy). Most Americans only assume that ISRAEL or the USA are under some kind of threat from Iran because that is what they have been fed.
For anyone outside the USA, it is obvious who is threatening whom. After all, a leading Republican contender for the presidency had songa about bombing Iran, while in the primary Rudy Guiliani supported a nuclear first strike of that country.
I am completely rooting for the Persians.
Turbulence
@JGabriel: I was under the impression that triggering mechanisms were still pretty difficult to master
I think you might both be right. It is pretty easy if you’re a serious country with a real industrial base and some hard core engineering and metallurgy talent. I think Iran might qualify. But NK is a society trapped in the 1800s. They can’t even construct large buildings correctly.
Roger Moore
@Omnes Omnibus:
As I understand it “preemptive” means taking the initiative when somebody is clearly about to attack you first. Preempting an immanent attack is widely viewed as an acceptable military strategy. What Bush II advocated was “preventative” attack, meaning attacking somebody because you believe that they’re a potential threat. I’d say that it’s a controversial position, but only in the same way that Bush’s policy of torture was “controversial”, i.e. it has never been acceptable, but the Bush Administration tried to legitimize it.
That's Master of Accountancy to You, Pal
On a related note, via TPM, this is a fabulous article about a group of American imams touring Dachau and Auschwitz/Birkenau.
Joey Maloney
@soonergrunt:
And just like with Iraq, they’re perfectly happy to let the US and Israel get their hands dirty and take the weight for whatever crazy-assed thing they think ought to happen.
Ramiah Ariya
@Turbulence:
You are correct of course, that the average American has not seen the cost of the Iraq war in lives. Therein lies the whole issue:
The post WWII world order was supposed to based upon maintaining peace, and avoiding the horrors of fascism, AND colonialism. The assumption was that nations are sovereign.
But while this is a good model, it has not been assimilated by the winners of WWII or their populations.
That is, the USA or Britain wield a huge amount of power, even though the average American is like the citizen of any other country; the American society has no special ability to restrict or manage such usages of power.
That is a huge problem for the world, at this time. It is, in many ways, equivalent to the threat of global terrorism.
Anoniminous
@JGabriel:
I agree, trigger mechanisms that approaches obtainment of the theoretical yield potential are hard to make. However even a sub-critical fizzle bomb can Ruin Your Day and Fat Man, et. al., went critical using some really clunky POS, by today’s standards, triggers.
Roger Moore
It depends on what kind of bomb you’re trying to build. Plutonium is relatively easy to make- it’s a byproduct of operating any reactor and can be separated from the Uranium in the reactor chemically- but designing a working bomb is hard. Getting enough U235 for a working bomb is hard- the isotopic enrichment is a bitch- but designing a working bomb is relatively simple.
A good example of this is the first American nuclear devices. The designers in the Manhattan project weren’t sure about their Pu bomb designs, so they had to test one at Trinity before they were sure that the Fat Man bomb would work. They were confident enough about the Little Boy U235 bomb that the first test of the design was when it was dropped on Hiroshima.
That only applies to the simplest designs, though, which are relatively inefficient in their use of nuclear materials. More advanced designs can get away with using much less fissile material, but the engineering is much tougher and would require some testing to refine the designs.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Ramiah Ariya:
Regardless of nuclear weapons, I do think China and Russia tend to be a bit more sane with regards to, well, just about everything. Har har har, Israel is also governed and run by theocratic nutjobs, but so is Iran, and I don’t think its a good thing at all for Iran to have nukes.
I tend to agree that attacking Iran would be a bad thing, but I don’t think in any conceivable universe Iran having them as well would be good, either.
Again, if Iran actually develops the bomb, deploys it, and if down the road there was decent intel saying that they were on the verge of using it (lots of ifs there, obviously) a pre-emptive attack I think would be in order, but given the source of most shitty intel about Iran’s nuke capability (nebulous Israeli statements that seem to think Iran is always on the verge of doing so) I think that’s a long ways off.
Any nuclear attack on Israel could also kill more Muslims than the American occupation of Iraq, which is also a perverse irony, and something I think even the Iranians would recognize.
Ramiah Ariya
@Amanda in the South Bay:
But you (and many other commenters here) keep talking about a nuclear attack on Israel – why do you think that is on the cards? By who? Iran? Why would Iran attack Israel with nuclear bombs?
I see that whenever there is a discussion about Iran and its nuclear program, somehow there is a statement about Israel; its existence; or speculation of a nuclear attack on Israel.
I see this link mentioned a lot in American media – I just do not understand WHY there is this automatic association. After all, you could apply many of the things you say about Iran to Pakistan, right? Iran is an actual democracy, while Pakistan has been under military rule most of its modern history. They have nuclear bombs, have had the capability for the past 20 years at least.
So why not Pakistan? Why is Iran portrayed as some kind of evil country that would develop nuclear weapons solely to drop them on Israel?
I think that association (between the Iranian nuclear program to Israel) has been a propaganda coup, without any factual basis. It is a very very successful link (somewhat similar to the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda).
Here is an alternative: It seems to me that the hue and cry over the Iranian program and linking it to Israel and its existence (it seems to me) is only to successfully maintain a boogeyman in the Middle East; such a boogeyman keeps support for Israel cemented in the West. It keeps projecting non existent threats to Israel merely to keep the money and weapons flowing. It has nothing to do with any facts.
Turbulence
@Amanda in the South Bay: Any nuclear attack on Israel could also kill more Muslims than the American occupation of Iraq, which is also a perverse irony, and something I think even the Iranians would recognize.
Why are even considering the prospects of a nuclear attack on Israel. It is not going to happen because Israel can retaliate with a lot more nuclear weapons than Iran might possibly have in the next few decades. Plus I haven’t seen any evidence that Iran has delivery devices capable of delivering primitive nuclear weapons.
There is this weird fixation on inventing security problems for Israel that don’t make any sense unless you make bizarre non-sensical assumptions.
El Cid
Juan Cole is not “anti-Israel”, any more than opposing US policies in any number of other countries is “anti-American”.
By that logic, tons of Israelis are “anti-Israel,” because as we all know, only militarist Israeli policies are “pro-Israel.”
cmorenc
@DougJ
Eeeaaah…you knew you shoulda taken a left turn at the Coffee Maker.
Svensker
@Turbulence:
And @Amanda…
Perhaps we should be having a little talk with Israel and India? What’s that you say? Can’t hear you over the crickets.
Svensker
@Ramiah Ariya:
Are you talking about the United States? The bestest country in the world, that only does good? Unpossible.
soonergrunt
@Joey Maloney:
Here is the part that I think most people might be missing:
Iran doesn’t want a nuke to bomb Israel.
Iran wants a nuke to immunize themselves from the US. The mere possession of a nuclear bomb gets them into a very exclusive club.
The club of nations that don’t worry about external attack and particularly attack by the United States. A nuke is freedom of action in physical form, particularly for the state that sees itself as the rightful powerhouse within a region. Countries like China and India and…Iran.
Nuclear states do what they will. Non-nuclear states do what they must.
@Svensker: see the above, re: consequences.
Svensker
@Ramiah Ariya:
I probably only talking to myself at this point, but…
Iran is the big boogeyman in the ME because if Iran has nukes it can counter Israeli/US hegemony in the ME. It totally changes the balance of power. Pakistan is not a problem (at least as long as the present US-friendly gov’t is in power), but Iran is a relatively prosperous potentially fairly powerful country that refuses to buckle under to us and to Israel. Right now the US has Jordan, Syria (sort of), Egypt, Saudi, and Pakistan, all of whose gov’ts pretty much go along with Israel fucking over the Pals and let the US do pretty much what it wants militarily. We’ve got Iraq bottled up, so the only two real problems are The Leb and Iran. Lebanon is mostly just a thorn in Israel’s side but doesn’t affect the balance of power much. But Iran is the big question mark — if they get nukes and don’t have to cower when Israel or the US tries to throw its weight around….
Hence, the hysteria. Presenting it as “those crazy mullahs (all “mullahs” are considered kinda crazy here anyway) are gonna incinerate the Jews in a 2nd holocaust! ! !” is a great way to cover up the real reason for the anti-Iran talk while whipping up some honest to God hate and fear.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Svensker:
When did I say anything about ignoring Israel and India? I swear, the commenters here have a bad habit of reading waaay too much into what people say, and imparting the worst of motives to people who disagree.
Just for the record:
1. I considered going AWOL to Canada whilst in the Army because I considered the Iraq War to be totally fucked up, and since I was an interrogator I didn’t think I had the strength to potentially disobey orders if I had to torture someone. fortunately never had to worry about that.
2. I think Israel can generally fuck off, and at this point don’t really give a shit about them.
3. I usually get frustrated about people here who think that we need to stay the course in A-stan. Lets gtfo out of Iraq and A-stan immediately.
4. My fav Linux distro is Ubuntu, I hate seafood, and say pop instead of soda.
There, I had to prove my liberal anti-war bonifides. Any more knee jerk reactions that I want to nuke Iran into the ground or that I fellate Israeli cock?
Svensker
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Not YOU crickets, the US commentariat crickets.
Anyone who says PoP is OK by me.
Brachiator
@Turbulence:
Doesn’t this argue for the elimination of non-proliferation treaties? By your reasoning here, even if Iran gets nukes, they will not be a threat to Israel. So, sanctions against Iran (which appear to be ineffective) and opposition to their nuclear programs are a waste of time, money and energy.
@soonergrunt:
This is a good point about why nations want to join the nuclear club. Iran, with the bomb, would immediately become a Big Man in the region, bigger than Saddam Hussein ever could have been. It gives them power and prestige, even more than having a powerful and effective army, even though obviously a nuclear Iran would not be a threat to the US, and would probably not be a real threat to Israel. But they would have prestige, and potentially a stronger bargaining position with respect to Middle East Issues.
And while Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region would be very alarmed if Iran got the bomb, many ordinary people in the region would cheer.
Yep. Still, having nukes is a mixed curse. Pakistan is taken only a little more seriously, and hasn’t really been able to use its position as a nuclear power to any great foreign policy benefit.
And both Pakistan and North Korea have to divert huge amounts of money from economic development in order to maintain their nuclear ambitions and, ironically become more dependent on sponsors, the US and China, respectively, to prop up their regimes.
KDP
@That’s Master of Accountancy to You, Pal: Thank you, sir. I was about to post the same article.
Mnemosyne
It would also allow them to tell Israel to STFU whenever they want since Israel will not be the only ME country with nukes anymore and won’t be able to hold that over Iran’s head anymore.
I still think that if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because Iran wouldn’t bother making more than symbolic steps towards getting a nuclear weapon. Once the US demonstrated that they were willing to bomb non-nuclear countries and overthrow their governments, suddenly the expensive and messy process of getting a nuke was worth it to avoid ending up like Iraq.
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
RE: It gives them power and prestige, even more than having a powerful and effective army
The prestige would be a mixed bag, more for public consumption and praise from the Street than anything real. Iran having a few nuclear weapons will not give them any nuclear parity with respect to Israel, and will add to political instability in the region, especially among hardliners in the Israeli government. There might also be a mini-arms race, as Israel takes whatever steps necessary to insure its nuclear supremacy.
Also, Iran having nukes might have an unexpected side effect. They could never mobilize their military against Israel if Israel ever went to war with other countries in the region, because they would have to consider the possibility that Israel would unleash a nuclear preemptive strike.
I don’t know about this. The invasion of Iraq was a fuck-up of monumental proportions, but hypotheticals and alternative histories are just impossible. Who knows what anybody might be doing now. After all, no Iraq invasion and Saddam Hussein is still in power.
Also, the US was apparently “surprised” when both India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club.
But I agree with you that as a result of the Iraq invasion, it is reasonable that nations look to getting nukes as a way of avoiding what happened with Iraq.
Dan
Maybe we need to stop confusing reporting/projections about what Israel/the US/iran do with advocacy for one or more of the involved parties?
Goldberg can be all the awful things many of you seem to think he is, but I still think this article isn’t so much propaganda as it is a window into how israelis view the situation right or wrong.
Shelton Lankford
Do you suppose any of the deep thinkers at the AEI or AIPAC are musing (probably to themselves, given all the furor their out loud musing stirred up) that an attack on Iran would be a problem unless there were a catalyzing event, like a new pearl harbor, or in this case a New, new pearl harbor.
Wonder what form that might take this time…
soonergrunt
@Brachiator:
@Mnemosyne:
The problem for Pakistan is that the government doesn’t even excercise sovereignty over its’ own territory, and the only country they have consistent problems with is also nuclear armed, as is the 1200-lb gorilla, China. All a nuke does for Pakistan is guarantee that they won’t be completely kicked out of the Kashmir.
I agree with the statement that nuclear weapons are a mixed blessing at best. In fact, I’d say for most nations, they are more of a ball and chain. The rest of the world suddenly gets all up in your grill about behaving maturely and carefully as a nuclear armed first level power ought to, and this actually has a deleterious effect to some extent on that freedom of action they were looking for.
North Korea may suddenly have gotten everybody and his brother to play nicer and not be quite so snobby, but at the same time, there are a LOT more nukes pointed at them today than 15 years ago.
Additionally, as one of you noted, nukes are very expensive to maintain.
It occurs to me that junior high school might actually be a useful model for describing international relations to non poly-sci/IR-types.
dopey-o
There is a very simple, non-military solution to the Iranian nuke problem.
Here is our new and improved policy:
Iran may develop as many nuclear weapons as it deems necessary for its defense. In the meantime, we will give Saudi Arabia 2 nukes for every one Iran builds. We’ve got plenty in America, really lots more than we need, and Saudi Arabia has been a good ally.
I don’t think the Iranians are very fearful of our exhausted military invading their nation. The Saudis with nukes might be a different contest.
(Please note that I didn’t say we would give the Saudis the launch codes. Just don’t tell the Iranians that….)
soonergrunt
@dopey-o: Well, it’s certainly a different idea than has been floated for dealing with Iranian nukes.
Ricardo Cabeza
DougJ,
Me thinks you will be most tempted to post on this topic again as Apartheid Israels moral cancer spreads.
DougJ
@Dan:
I don’t think it is, because I doubt that this is how Israelis view it. If you read Cole’s article, you’ll find that other pieces on the subject have generally included views from Israelis who express doubts about Iran’s nuclear program and/or the efficacy of a bombing.
Goldberg’s refusal to include *any* dissenting views is strange and I see no explanation for it other than that he is propagandizing.
Daddy-O
@El Cruzado: You’re right. It’s a tad difficult tip-toe-ing around extreme snark.
I just wanted to nail as many nutjob extremist groups that would fit the mold.
dopey-o
@soonergrunt:
i just wanted to get out of the “we’re gonna bomb the f**k out of you unless you knuckle under” mindset that got us into iraq.
we can’t stop the iranians from building a nuke. but maybe we can get them to not want to build a nuke.
a nuclear saudi arabia is not a pleasant thought, but it’s probably a more realistic deterrent than fighting the iranians in iran and iraq at the same time.
soonergrunt
This much is true, and it’s the goal of non-proliferation. I really do think that the thing with the Russians reprocessing their uranium for them is in the direction we need to go with the Iranians.
El Cid
@soonergrunt: Yeah, sure, but it’s certainly not as exciting as bombing much of Iran.
Turbulence
@Brachiator: The prestige would be a mixed bag, more for public consumption and praise from the Street than anything real.
So what? Prestige for public consumption can be the difference between a regime in power and a regime lined up against the wall. Seems pretty damn important to me.
Iran having a few nuclear weapons will not give them any nuclear parity with respect to Israel
So what? They don’t need parity to deter Israeli/American attacks. I mean, China has way fewer nuclear weapons than we do and they’re not trying to reach parity with us because they don’t need to: they have more than a sufficient deterrent. That’s all Iran needs and almost certainly all Iran wants.
and will add to political instability in the region, especially among hardliners in the Israeli government.
Eh, I don’t find this at all persuasive. The problem with the hardliners in any government is that they’re insane. No matter what Iran does, hardliners in the Israeli government will interpret their actions in a maximally threatening way. If Iran does everything the US wants, hardliners will turn around and say “this is a trick, they’re secretly building nukes at some hidden underground site” — I mean, we saw exactly this dynamic in Iraq: no matter what the Iraqi government did, it was never enough to convince the hardliners that they had stopped their weapons production. In fact, hardliners in the US STILL believe that Iraq had loads of WMD and that it got shipped to Syria or Mars or wherever. So this political instability argument is BS.
There might also be a mini-arms race, as Israel takes whatever steps necessary to insure its nuclear supremacy.
I think this is a little absurd. Iran is literally decades away from being a competitor to Israel. The notion of an arms race seems like a paranoid joke.
I don’t know about this. The invasion of Iraq was a fuck-up of monumental proportions, but hypotheticals and alternative histories are just impossible. Who knows what anybody might be doing now. After all, no Iraq invasion and Saddam Hussein is still in power.
You forget: unlike the US government, the Iranian government is not completely stupid — they knew that Hussein was powerless.
In any event, I’ve got a hypothetical that I think is impossible to refute. Right now, the US occupies counties on either side of Iran. This has to freak out the Iranian military. Anyone who argues that the Iranian military would be less freaked out in a world where the US was not occupying countries on either side of Iran is simply insane.
Turbulence
@Brachiator: Doesn’t this argue for the elimination of non-proliferation treaties? By your reasoning here, even if Iran gets nukes, they will not be a threat to Israel. So, sanctions against Iran (which appear to be ineffective) and opposition to their nuclear programs are a waste of time, money and energy.
No. What argues for the elimination of non-proliferation treaties is the fact that the Big 5 nuclear nations refuse to follow their obligations: i.e., they refuse to actually disarm. It is obvious to everyone on earth that the US is not going to give up its nuclear weapons. Therefore, the nonproliferation treaty is a joke. Since we don’t take it seriously, I don’t see why anyone else should either.
And yes, I do think sanctions against Iran are a waste of time, energy, and money.
dopey-o
@soonergrunt:
now that i’ve slept on it, let me ask a simple question: what does iran want these nukes for?
what if they don’t want a nuke? what if the regime in tehran wants a US attack? bush’s ‘flypaper strategy’ in reverse.
are the mullahs calculating that a US attack would dissolve political divisions in iran? do they suppose that with US troops tied up in iraq and afghanistan, a US military invasion would ultimately lead to iran annexing iraq?
did iran sacrifice 1,000,000 men in the war with iraq? what price would iran pay to guarantee that never recurs? a little uranium and a few hundred thousand troops’ lives begin to look like a reasonable plan to insure iran’s peaceful future as a regional power.
I can see the headlines in tehran’s future. “Peace arrives for the Shi’ia People!”