Israel to World: "Suck It."

i'd've said that the killing of nuclear scientists serves an analogous purpose to terrorism in that it's at least partly intended to discourage others from pursuing a career in the Iranian nuke-development industry

you can characterize any assassination that way. assassinating a general is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's military. assassinating a weapons designer (which is what this was) is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's weapon design industry. assassinating a whatever is to discourage others from pursuing a career in whatever whatever whatever.

yeah, to be clear i really don't think the world wd be improved by a nuclear-capable Iran, i'm just saying that inasmuch as the assassinations act as a warning or an attempt to speak to sections of a community they are terrorist-like

the problem is with the word "terrorism", obviously

Also I don't know what you're referring to re America refusing to acknowledge state-sponsored terrorism

I don't know all the particulars but I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism." Because "terrorism" is only performed by err dissidents/unaffiliated groups.

I would say the program of assassinations is clearly a sign to Iran to turn aside from their goal of nuclear capabilities? Because killing individuals (who have done nothing wrong but be good citizens of their own country and be smart and have a rare talent), isn't going to stop the program. Wouldn't it fit the criteria for terrorism in the sense of being intended to change Iran's behavior?

I'd like to see specifically what you're referring to re state-sponsored terrorism. What you're saying sounds a bit like a particular argument I've heard used against the United States that they distinguish between their own actions (like drone programs) and what's is generally referred to as terrorism as being separate. Not that this is a particular policy, but that the author of this argument is trying to implicate the US in the very actions they claim to condemn. (I'm not saying whether this argument is legitimate or not. Just where I suspect your comment comes from.)

I do think that if you participate in development nuclear weapons for your country, there is a level of culpability involved in your actions beyond being a "good citizen" who is "smart" and has a "rare talent." You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people, and that may one day in the future do so. Certainly there were other ways for this man to make a living with his gifts + intelligence beyond designing weapons of death?

Yeah but Mordy, I somehow don't think you would consider it ok for Japan to have assasinated Oppenheimer, and knowing what we know now there was probably considerably more justification for that than this.

I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism."

uh Axis of Evil lol

lol, actually I had written something in that post that I deleted that said that very thing. I would've totally understood if someone had assassinated Oppenheimer, and I understand anyone who assassinates someone who designs weapons for another country. Especially (maybe exclusively?) an antagonist country that is perceived as a threat. xp

My source is the guy Greenwald interviews here.

"As Brulin explains, this dilemma is often “resolved” by countries trying to create definitions that simply bar the possibility that they themselves could ever engage in Terrorism (as exemplified by the long-standing efforts of the U.S. to insist that Terrorism is, by definition, something that only non-state actors can engage in, even as it labels other governments “state sponsors of terrorism”)."

the actual American political line is "when they do it, it's terrorism. when we do it, it's ... uh forget I said that, we don't do it! THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER"

Also I think Goldberg's line of thinking kind of unfairly differentiates Israel's concerns from Iran's. I mean Iran is also a country surrounded by hostile nations, it's fought wars with neighbors in recent memories, and therefore has interest in self-defense, or w/e

Yeah Laurel -- even that quote acknowledges that the US believes some governments are state sponsors of terrorism. Greenwald is trying to condemn US actions, he's not making a nuanced argument about US law + terror.

Uh Hurting, if you read the whole thing:

"By the way, I understand why Iran's unelected supreme leader might believe that nuclear weapons are in his country's best interests. I don't agree that he should have them, but I understand why he would want them. "

But Goldberg believes that Israel should have them for the same reasons that Iran wants them and shouldn't have them.

You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people

in the US we call this joining the army

Yes?

in the US we call this joining the army paying taxes

fixed courtesy of HD Thoreau

Can we not turn this thread into Morbz-Nonsense-Comedy-Hour? There are already half a dozen threads for that.

But Goldberg believes that Israel should have them for the same reasons that Iran wants them and shouldn't have them.

He also believes Iran would misuse theirs and that Israel has (and will) not. I agree with him. I think Iran will possibly misuse nuclear weapons.

well the odds that Iran might leak nuke stuff to a proxy seems pretty high. Israel's not gonna do this, since all their allies already have nukes lol

"misuse"

Does the whole mutually-assured destruction thing not hold for everyone in the world? If Iran nuked Israel, wouldn't some other ally (probably us lol) destroy them immediately? Or are they counting on other countries being more afraid of the loss of life than they are?

I guess I mean hypothetically. If they were ever to use them, which can't really be established.

If Iran nuked Israel, wouldn't some other ally (probably us lol) destroy them immediately?

hence my ref to likelihood of proxy. MAD scenarios only apply to states. if you don't know who just nuked Jerusalem, you can't nuke them back.

Oh hmm.

There is a discussion about whether mutually assured destruction applies here being as how Israel is a small enough country that there might be a potential to destroy them without retaliation. Mutually assured destruction doesn't classically apply to an ally responding. Also, I believe there is a concern that Iran might use nuclear weapons through a proxy.

aka what Shakey said

why does sullivan have hair on his daily beasy avatar

The theory that Iran might use nuclear weapons at some stage is pretty much reliant on the idea that they don't particularly care if Iran is detroyed as well. It's meant to be a grand armageddon scenario. There's not much to back it up.

The US would nuke Iran in retaliation, even if Israel couldn't. Iran doesn't want secret weapons it can use through proxies, it wants big fancy ones it can parade through the streets.

there might be a potential to destroy them without retaliation

oh come on. Israel sees some missiles in the air headed their way you think they aren't gonna press the button?

it wants big fancy ones it can parade through the streets.

this is obvious. it's a nationalism thing, and a deterrence thing as well.

People forget that Iran's defining foreign relationship is with Iraq, not the US or Israel. The Iran-Iraq war, which was started by Iraq and fuelled by the US and UK, killed a million Iranians. Their nationalism and deterrence policy is determined by the need to be in a position to stop that happening ever again.

eh I doubt they're worried about Iraq nuking them. they've got other ways to manipulate Iraq, thx to shi'a presence in Iraq's new gov't

I would buy that entirely without caveat if they didn't fund military groups to attack Israel or take numerous opportunities to discuss destroying Israel and wiping it off the face of the map. If it's just about protecting themselves from a resurgent Iraq, why even bother with Israel? If it's (as is popularly assumed) just to appease their citizens with rhetoric, I think you have to ask why they would appease their citizens with rhetoric and proxy military action but not with direct military direct.

that's xp to ShariVari

To some extent everyone misuses nuclear weapons. Having them means being able to stuff you wouldn't otherwise do and when you're neighbors whinge, well you tell them to suck it. That has certainly been the case with Israel and it most certainly would be the case w/Iran. Otoh, they have Saudi and the Sunni Gulf States and Israel to deter, ntm the US. I can totally see why they don't want a repeat of the British, or the Arabs or the Greeks or Timurlane, or Saddam Hussein, etc..., to ever happen again.

xp Proxy military action gives them influence with other regional players. Hizb'allah on their side gives them weight in Lebanon. It's also part of the domestic rhetoric - they can play up the idea that they're giving vital support to their Shi'ite brothers which goes down well with part of the audience at home. There's a huge jump between giving guns and money to a terrorist group and putting the entire future of your nation on the line with nuclear war. Iran, like all other countries in the region, doesn't really care about the Palestinians, or Israel, enough to do that.

xxp, it's not so much a fear of Iraq nuking them, it's to ward off the possible threat of invasion from a Sunni-dominated Iraq in the future. They're finding other ways to do that at the moment but this is a beef that has been going on for hundreds of years.

They're surrounded (if you count across the Gulf) by 9 Sunni States and one tiny Christian one.

Really beautiful piece in the NYT today about a small market soccer team in Israel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/sports/soccer/in-israel-a-stunning-rise-for-kiryat-shmonas-soccer-team.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

If they make it to the CL, I will totally root for them

American politics, but given the South Carolina primary upset, it's worth reviewing the Likud / Sheldon Adelson / Newt Gingrich ties that might swing the Republican primaries (esp. Super Tuesday).

Washington Post

Time

Ian Masters interview with Max Blumenthal on Adelson and Gingrich (mp3)
Like this interview, as it details a series of actions via which Likud & Israel could oust Obama.

Too tired + distracted to listen to an mp3 right now but can you summarize how Likud & Israel could possibly oust Obama?

Blumenthal's scenario is a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran, followed by Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz (and 13% of global oil supplies) in the months prior to the general election. Israel's political allies then blame both the skyrocketing gas prices and U.S. inaction prior to their attacks on Obama.

The Bibi Connection by Max Blumenthal, which focuses more on Likud intervention in U.S. domestic politics rather than another October surprise.

Blumenthal's scenario is a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran, followed by Iran closing the Straits of Hormuz (and 13% of global oil supplies) in the months prior to the general election.

lol this is not going happen

also presupposes that the GOP will be in a position to exploit said hypothetical events for electoral gains in key states, which is a huuuuuuuuuuuge stretch

If (huge if) any of those things happened, the International Community wouldn't stand idly by while Iran closed the Straits of Hormuz. But it's a cute theory.

Also, I defy anyone to read this: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/01/26/will-israel-attack-iran-and-if-it-does-can-it-really-stop-tehrans-nuclear-program/

And tell me what it means. Far as I can tell, either Israel is planning on attacking Iran tonight, Israel is never planning on attacking Iran, or shit is just crazy over there.

“I informed the cabinet we have no ability to hit the Iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way,” the official quoted the senior commander as saying. “If I get the order I will do it, but we don’t have the ability to hit in a meaningful way.”

The defense official told Time, that according to an estimate by the Atomic Energy Commission, Israel will only be able to push back Iran's nuclear program by several months to a year, after taking into account the wide geographic dispersion of Tehran's nuclear facilities and the the limits of Israel's air force.

I just can't figure out why on January 26, 2012, defense officials are giving quotes to Time Magazine about how they can't hit the Iranian nuclear program in a meaningful way.

misdirection...? yeah I dunno

It would be easy and cheap to for Iran close to close Hormuz to VLCC traffic for a period of weeks. Just launch a few hundred untethered drift mines in the vicinity and very large crude carrier (VLCC) insurers will make transit prohibitive. There aren't that many minesweepers available to U.S. forces, and while NATO probably still has quite a few (I should check Janes), most are deployed in Northern Europe.

Now whether the parties will go through with what they've been threatening for years now is another matter entirely.