the USA, Israel, and national interest

bipartisanship!

The bill introduced Monday in the U.S. House of Representatives by four lawmakers -- Reps. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) and Robert Brady (D-Pa.) -- would target dozens of nations that receive assistance ranging from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to billions.

"We won't allow other countries to vote against our best friend with one hand in the U.N. and come to Congress to seek taxpayer dollars with the other hand," said Israel.

The bill would include a standard presidential national security waiver....

On Tuesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, held a news conference with eight other Republicans to tout her U.N. reform bill, which includes provisions that would cut funding to any U.N. body that enhances the Palestinian status. She called on President Obama to back the initiative.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/14/3089372/dem-bill-would-pull-defense-aid-from-nations-voting-for-statehood

The UN statehood vote is purely symbolic anyway, so I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up about it.

also, it's always a good day in NYC when Dov Hikind is pissed:

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/15/the_dangerous_pro-palestine_subway.php

vote against our best friend

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01949/tears_1949528c.jpg

B...b...but the 'special relationship'! We thought we had something real. :(

we never liked u guys afaicr

http://prancingpawsdoggiedaycare.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Sad-Bulldog2-150x150.jpg

Right-wing blogger says Obama has thrown Israel under the bus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-middle-east-dead-end/2011/03/29/gIQA6gEgkK_blog.html?hpid=z3

that's EXACTLY why we're vetoing Palestinian statehood in the UN

curmudgeon saying that is jennifer rubin's job

i mean totally literally that is what she is paid to do

Oh nice

Senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said Wednesday that the Palestinians' statehood bid at the United Nations is the only alternative to violence, stressing that the UN move will give the Palestinians the chance to promote their rights.

"The UN is the only alternative to violence," Shaath said during a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly."It will be very costly to us and the Israelis. Our new heroes are Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/senior-palestinian-official-un-bid-is-only-alternative-to-violence-1.385885

uh, that first phrase doesn't really jibe with the second...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/16/israel-s-secret-iran-attack-plan-electronic-warfare.html

The important question isn't whether the Israelis can effectively strike Iran's nuclear facilities with sufficient force to cripple or delay their weapons-making capability; they can. What's more important is what Iran might do in response. When they struck Iraq and Syria, nothing much happened in response. Iran seems to me like a different kettle of fish.

Iran are far more beleaguered and whatever legitimacy this regime has stems, in part, from the legacy of the Iran/Iraq war.

The real question for me is whether they would ever use a bomb agressively or if they want one to dissuade Sunnis/Israelis/USA from attacking.

I think that Iranian leadership has had many opportunities where instead of using rhetoric of self-defense and protection, they have chosen rhetoric of violence and aggression. The latter isn't necessary to demonstrate strength, but they have still decided to go with it. You can always wonder whether they're really really serious, but in the end I think you have to err on the side that ppl are being sincere.

Being attacked by an enemy from without has a way of shoring up a regime's legitimacy rather quickly. The need to defend one's country usually overrides lesser concerns of personal freedom or economic opportunity.

The unconcern of the Iranian clerics for the lives of Iranian soldiers during the war with Iraq was rather breathtaking. Now they once more have a lot of disgruntled and expendable young men on thier hands. A war might seem like just the thing to them. Or not. I don't pretend to know.

A rational Iranian regime would use their nuclear capacity as a shield and as a way to dominate their near neighbors. One would hope that rationality is at work here.

They use that rhetoric against the US, too but it makes me wonder whether they're really telling Russia, Turkey, Israel, Saudi, US, "We Kerrazeee (don't even try it)", or whether they are, in fact, paranoid and delusional.

Well, that's always the bet of history -- do you bet that things will probably be the way they always are, ie: that ppl tend to act rationally, that they tend not to be paranoid and delusional, that most people don't want to unleash a nuclear holocaust, etc, or do you bet that this is the rare circumstance where the guy in charge is actually legit dangerous. Generally it's the former, but once in awhile it's the latter. Unfortunately, the consequence of it being the latter is so severe that you can't discount the possibility.

I'm just not sure why attacking them makes any sense, though. I'm loath to trade in stereotypes but Shi'ia is kind of notorious for its persecution complex, add that to Persian ire over being a once great power who's been kicked around for awhile now and I wonder whether the better option might be a public declaration from the US that any aggressive nuclear moves on their part will be answered in spades.

How many strikes will be needed in the end? Can't they just dig deeper and deeper?

xp
There are and have been enough crazy people in positions of national power in the past that you can never discount it entirely. Also, the dynamics of power can lead to very distorted calculations, even when leaders attempt to be cold and calculating.

I can see from an Israeli perspective that having 6 million ppl in a relatively small area doesn't really give them any wiggle room. Otoh an endless campaign against Iranian WMD capability doesn't have much in the way of a happy endgame, either.

xp that's my point. it happens rarely, but it happens.

i'd like to know how anyone can answer iranian nuclear ambitions with, "they'll never attack anyone, they're totally peaceful, it's just to defend themselves." with certainty. how can you possibly know that for sure? it's not even like they've said they're peaceful and they just want it for a deterrent and other ppl are claiming that they're lying and being disingenuous. they have explicitly said that they want to wipe Israel out and then i hear ppl saying either, "no, that's just for show," or the totally asinine, "no, in persian that means something different than what it sounds like. it's symbolic."

It's definitely part of the rhetoric they use with their base. Whining about Israel and weeping over the fate of the Palestians is an old game in the Muslim world but it's also partially a side-show to distract ppl from the stuff the regime can't do like lift sanctions or subsidize oil the way they used to and you can talk all you want about wiping Israel off the map but if they try it, Tehran and more will be taken out, too.

Without question, but the line between rhetorically pacifying your base and militarily pacifying your base is a thin one. In numerous countries military rhetoric has frequently erupted into actual military action.

Like isn't that always the next step after you've lost your support? Start a war.

I guess what I'm saying is basically Kennan's long telegram; containment over actual confrontation. I'm not sure what kind of threat Iran represents otherwise; Druze and money to Hamas? What are the ramifications of a successful strike? What's Khamenei's next move? What do the Council of Guardians or Ahmedinejhad do following an attack?

If you think they're rational enough actors not to commit catastrophic military action with nuclear weapons, then presumably they're also rational enough not to commit catastrophic military action if their nuclear sites are bombed. If you believe that bombing their nuclear sites would be enough to get them to launch an attack against Israel, then why is not bombing them enough to keep them from launching an attack against Israel once they have nuclear weapons?

Like isn't that always the next step after you've lost your support? Start a war.

Why would Israel want to give them a casus belli? Or do we essentially think they are de facto already at war like Syria is and this is basically just a way to make them less dangerous.

It will bolster the regime imho and likely splinter what's left of the Green movement.

I guess you could believe that they're just crazy enough to start a conventional war with Israel once provoked, but not crazy enough to start a nuclear war (bc of mutually assured destruction)...

Yes, we essentially think they are de facto already at war.

I should insert, de facto already participating in a cold war.

All I know is basically that YHWH sure had a messed up sense of humor promising that land to you. It's been a royal pain in the ass ever since.

I should insert, de facto already participating in a cold war.

I guess this is pretty incontrovertible at this point

I hope all this Israeli military tech is going to have really really cool civilian applications.

whether iranian state actors are quite "rational" in their decision-making is not knowable; you could assume they are just as rational in their own self-preservation and the advancement of their beliefs as any other state elite, the syrians, bibi himself, anybody. they have to know that any kind of nuclear exchange with israel would lead to the absolute and total destruction of iran.

you can argue that the iranian elites are so religion- and revolution-soaked that this kind of mass suicide is "worth it" to them ideologically but frankly i doubt it. if the iranians get a bomb i think you would see non-persian and non-shia states rushing to nuclearize pretty quickly, probably with plenty of help, turkey, the saudis, possibly even egypt. a little mini-cold war!

plenty of xps

What, if any, do you think the effects of American draw-down in Iraq and Afghanistan will be on the Iranian regime?

I hope all this Israeli military tech is going to have really really cool civilian applications.

They don't have the best tech sector outside of the US for nothing.

you can argue that the iranian elites are so religion- and revolution-soaked that this kind of mass suicide is "worth it" to them ideologically but frankly i doubt it. if the iranians get a bomb i think you would see non-persian and non-shia states rushing to nuclearize pretty quickly, probably with plenty of help, turkey, the saudis, possibly even egypt. a little mini-cold war!

Actually, I was hoping someone would bring this up. If the Arab Spring has taught us anything, I think, it's that elites are willing to do pretty much anything, including massively slaughtering their own citizens, to maintain power. If it came to losing power in Iran, or a nuclear exchange, I think the ppl with a finger on the button might decide mass suicide is worth it.

im not like an expert in this stuff but just on the face of it im a LOT more worried about pakistan, which already HAS nuclear weapons and seems much less stable than iran

And I don't think it's an ideological flaw, I think it's a fallacy in game theory that fails to account for this possibility. I can think of a few historical leaders that I think would be okay with a nuclear exchange (Pol Pot comes immediately to mind...).

xp the concern about pakistan is just that -- that stability might fail and non-state agents could get access to the nuclear arsenal. but it's pretty clear that as long as they remain stable, they aren't going to use their weapons. i don't know that it's the same dynamic for Iran.

If it came to losing power in Iran, or a nuclear exchange

i wouldn't even put these in the same bucket. the green and reformist elements in iran were just as pro-nuke as the government and clerics

i think there are possible iranian administrations that wouldn't be quite as frightening re possession of nukes as the current one. like i wrote above, if iran was saying, "we need nukes as a deterrent," even that would be a totally different situation than the one currently at play.

I'm just not sure why attacking them makes any sense, though.

― Do you know what the secret of comity is? (Michael White), donderdag 17 november 2011 20:13 (28 minutes ago) Bookmark

^^ This sums it up for me, perfectly. Iran's hateful rhetoric is one thing, but it seems to stem from frustration more than anything, from being a paper tiger, than from posing a real threat of actually preparing an attack on Israel. I don't think Iran is capable of it; I've not seen any proof even hinting at the fact that they are capable.

Looking through Israel's eyes, I can't see any good coming from a pre-emptive strike, in whatever way. Geopolitically speaking it would be extremely bad timing, too, with the 'Arab spring' flame dulling and flaring up still. It would only confirm the idea that Israel can do whatever they like, being backed by America, damaging the millions of people in Iran that are gaining energy - inspired by other masses of 'the people' in the region that have overthrown their regime - getting ready for the next revolution in Iran. Because it's on the way. It may take way longer than other countries in the region, but it's coming, I'm sure of that.

Attacking Iran would polarize things immensely, throw back all the progress made in the region to come to a democratic model.

What do you mean by 'capable'?

By 'capable' I mean 'capable'... ?

Like you don't think they have the capability to enrich enough uranium to produce militarized nuclear weapons? Or you don't believe they are emotionally capable of making the decision to nuke another country or what?

The former. I don't think Iran is technically capable of creating nuclear weapons and being able to use them.

Even if they were I think the likelihood of them doing so is pretty low.

I assume you're basing that off something? Bc it seems very clear to me that Iran is capable of creating nuclear weapons and if it weren't for sanctions/stuxnet/etc, would be well on the way to doing so (and may be well on the way to doing so right now). xp Like, is it controversial to say that if left to their own devices (punz), Iran would develop nuclear weapons?