the USA, Israel, and national interest

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?

My ex-Israeli-general grandfather-in-law told me he didn't think Iran would nuke Israel.

I think the chance of any state using a nuke is really low.

And I'm not even sure that Iran would be the most unstable aggressive country with one if they had one so really who cares.

Yeah, it seems like the greater danger is a nuke falling into the hands of a non-state actor.

I think that if you had a local nuclear weapon-pursuing state that said about your country, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region," you would care about their acquisition of nuclear weapons. Even if you weren't sure whether or not they'd actually use them.

As pointed out above I don't feel like even if Israel should really really care about this (like in an "ohmigod we are all not safe way" I don't think its best interests are served by attacking Iran (or for that matter anyone). But diplomacy isn't exactly Israel's strong suit either so go with what ya know, I guess.

And I'm saying right now in this thread if any Canadians ever say anything mean about the US again, I will support doing anything to prevent those maple syrup loving mofos from getting a nuke too.

i think israel doing the right thing by trying to stop the iranian nuclear program using "soft" methods like hacking

im not sure the iranian program is "advanced" enough to require bombing, and a bombing program guarantees a response, but doesnt guarantee the end of iranian nukes, i.e., the country has lots of sites, hidden sites, etc.

re: triumphalist/eliminationist rhetoric: the world lived through krushchev

I think Krushchev is a great example of how terrifying and debilitating the threat of a nuclear exchange can be, and esp wrt the Cuban Missile Crisis a great example of how close countries can come to a nuclear exchange. The lesson from Krushchev isn't, "Well, we survived him so we no longer need to be worried about nuclear exchanges." The lesson is "Holy shit, that was close. Let's try not to get into that situation again."

...by starting a war?

as "terrifying and debilitating" the threat of nuclear war can be, im not sure its quite as "terrifying and debilitating" as what would have happened if wed bombed russia's nuke sites

If you believe that Iran doesn't have the ability to wage any kind of war on Israel, then 'starting a war' isn't actually on the table at all. What is on the table is a limited bombing of nuclear sites similar to the bombing in Syria in 2007. And that as a last resort.

Let's try not to get into that situation again.

really nothing we can do but suck it up and deal imo

"The lesson is "Holy shit, that was close. Let's try not to get into that situation again.""

Yes, excellent plan. Bomb away then.

And the USSR had actual functioning nuclear weapons. They weren't trying to covertly develop them. If we had been adjacent to the USSR, subject to 'eliminationist' rhetoric from them, and had intelligence that suggested they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, I imagine an airstrike would have been on the table then too, and without the benefit of hindsight (that thank god a nuclear exchange never happened) it would have been the right move imo.

between iran's missles, hezbollah, and hamas, im not sure that i believe that iran "doesn't have the ability to wage any kind of war on Israel"

? "we" who? europe was right there!

xp

Is this guy always this "BOMB BOMB BOMB, it's the right thing to do"?