Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

There's a interminable bizarre press conference being held right now by a campaign group that the alleged Jihadi John contacted because MI5 had been harassing him.

Not sure what they're trying to achieve.

One (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian leaders explicitly advocating the elimination of Israel.... Another (I think) relevant difference is a history of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorist and/or extremist groups.

Neither of these observations has much bearing on the use of nuclear weapons.

The worst side effect of Iranian nuclear capability that could be considered likely would be the initiation of an arms race that would require both Israel and Iran to pursue increasingly sophisticated systems for the detection of incoming missiles. Because of the proximity of the two nations, these systems would need to be set on a hair trigger. That would hugely increase the chances of an accidental nuclear exchange, unless, of course, the two sides negotiated a more reasonable compromise position, which, based on recent history is so not gonna happen.

As for a deliberate nuclear exchange, that is not going to happen either. The current provocations would certainly continue, but based on a somewhat altered calculus. For example, Israeli aircraft would probably not be sent to Iran to drop loads of bombs on Iranian targets with the same impunity as they would be today. Iran could extend its nuclear umbrella over countries it considered reliable allies. Overall, I'd say Iraq and the Gulf States would be affected far more than Israel would be.

the worst side effect of Iranian nuclear capability would be Saudi Arabian nuclear capability

expand on that, plz. how soon would this happen? would it be open or covert? how would it change things regionally or globally? iow, why is this so bad and hated?

on one hand any increase in nuclear stockpiles, esp in unstable or dangerous governments + states, is not a good thing. on the other hand pakistan already has nukes so really iran getting nukes (or even SA) would just be added a lot of risk to already extreme risk

In November 2013, a variety of sources told BBC Newsnight that Saudi Arabia had invested in Pakistani nuclear weapons projects and believes it could obtain nuclear bombs at will. Earlier in the year, a senior NATO decision maker told Mark Urban, a senior diplomatic and defense editor, that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery. In October 2013, Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring." Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions. Gary Samore, who until March 2013 was President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, told BBC Newsnight: "I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."[23]

so within a month maybe? it could be open, if iran gets nukes i can't imagine the US will have much leverage to keep saudi arabia from getting their own. hard to speculate about how a nuclear armed iran + saudi arabia would change the regional landscape - like the joke about nukes is that they're so expensive and once you have them you can't use them. so ideally, everyone gets nukes and then nothing really changes. but MAD is sorta bullshit and i'd hate to depend on the rationality of khomeni or the saudis, or the stability of either state, or an accidental exchange/miscommunication, etc. but like i said, pakistan already has nukes which is like worst case situation already so i don't have any more fingers to cross.

xp

So, if you accept that quote as reflecting reality, we may as well consider Saudi Arabia as a de facto nuclear power as of yesterday. In which case what you consider as the worst side effect of Iranian nuclear capability has already happened without Iranian nuclear capability. It's a done deal. That pony has already escaped the barn.

I agree with you that nuclear weapons in any country where the government might be
occupied by wild-eyed true believers is a Bad Thing. There seem to be a goodly supply of such extremists in the world today, and I would further note that the USA and Israel governments are not exempted from such influences. Although I would not call their governments unstable, whether or not to call them dangerous is a judgment call that will differ depending on where you sit.

So far, your arguments are so general that they apply to any country in the world, including the USA. Would you apply them to Israel? Their possession of nuclear weapons increases the stockpile of nuclear weapons as much any other country's stockpile does.

a) The problem isn't with someone being a de facto nuclear power (though having access to nukes is not the same as possessing them, so they're not even a de facto nuclear power), the problem is with these countries having actual nuclear programs. Iran is technically also a de facto nuclear power since they could easily power ahead and have nukes relatively quickly. Saudi Arabia has not yet adopted a nuclear program (despite their easy access) primarily bc of US assurances + guarantees, particularly regarding Iranian nuclear weapons. That's why if Iran actually became a nuclear state the US would have no more leverage against SA having their own program.

b) I believe in nuclear non-proliferation and I think every country in the world should disarm their nuclear weapons. I however do not believe that Israel should be the first state to lead the way considering their particular circumstances. As it is, though, I do feel less concerned about a country that has had a clandestine nuclear weapons program for decades and hasn't used them than a country that has absolutely no track record in not using their nukes.

a country that has absolutely no track record in not using their nukes

The USA you mean?

I think 1945 was a long time ago but if you think that the US should uniquely not have nukes because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I don't think that's necessarily a wrong conclusion.

I believe in nuclear non-proliferation and I think every country in the world should disarm their nuclear weapons.

I rather agree with you there.

I however do not believe that Israel should be the first state to lead the way considering their particular circumstances.

When it comes to disarmament, the equation must balance. It is not a matter of one nation unilaterally disarming out of some high flown idealism, but rather it needs to be based on a recognition that their own stockpile of weapons has become a destabilizing factor rather than a refuge of safety.

From its inception, Israel has relied on creating an imbalance of power to guarantee its safety. Nuclear weapons have been their ace in the hole, their ultimate threat. That thinking cannot work forever, as they are finding out, because they do not possess such incontestable superiority that their opponents will not eventually succeed in closing the power gap. I mean, how secure do Israelis feel today as a result of this policy?

At some point, relations with their neighbors must be settled upon a basis of equal security. imo, the days when Israel can be the only 'regional military superpower' are passing. They're going to have to come to the table and make a settlement, and that must be accompanied by a renunciation of their current policy of incontestable military superiority.

(shrugs) I don't see when or how that will happen, but it is the only game move that would break apart the old, exhausted thinking that's holding the region hostage. The only other way to break out would be total military conquest and occupation of all Israel's hostile neighbors and you know that will never happen in a million years.

From its inception, Israel has relied on creating an imbalance of power to guarantee its safety.

he days when Israel can be the only 'regional military superpower' are passing.

I think these claims are... misleading? Or at least incomplete. If Israel has ever enjoyed a moment of true 'regional military superpower' (which I think tends to be overstated, even today when it clearly has the edge compared to even SA or Iran), it certainly did not in '67 or '73 (or '48) where it seemed very possible that the surrounding Arab nations could overwhelm Israeli military might. I think many ppl consider Israeli military victories in these wars to be at the very least underdog victories. Notably these would also be the decades that Israel developed their nuclear program (with French help).

Moreover, I wouldn't characterize Israel's relationships to its neighbors as being one of 'incontestable superiority' but rather a 'land for peace' strategy (w/ Egypt, Syria, etc). The use of overwhelming military might (and I'm sure there are some Hezbollics that would even contest this description) has been saved mostly for non-State militant actors (PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas). So... I think you might not have a totally complete picture of the situation, or are at least missing some important nuances.

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0LS0VC20150224?sp=true

today i first read "Jihadi John" as Jilted John

Different takes on latest ISIS issues--

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/world/middleeast/more-assyrian-christians-captured-as-isis-attacks-villages-in-syria.html?emc=edit_th_20150227&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=37355772

The reports are like something out of a distant era of ancient conquests: entire villages emptied, with hundreds taken prisoner, others kept as slaves; the destruction of irreplaceable works of art; a tax on religious minorities, payable in gold.

Meanwhile the US was bragging that:

Iraq and its allies have made significant gains in battling militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), killing thousands of fighters and 50 percent of the group's top commanders, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-half-of-isis-leaders-killed-by-iraq-and-allies/

and while Republicans keep urging a tougher policy but never explaining it, lib leaning blogger Kevin Drum notes:

At a first guess, a full-scale assault on Mosul would likely require at least 2-3 times as many troops and result in several hundred American deaths. And Mosul is only a fraction of the territory ISIS controls. It's a big fraction, but still a fraction.

So this is what I want to hear from Republican critics of Obama's ISIS strategy. I agree with them that training Iraqi troops and relying on them to fight ISIS isn't all that promising. But the alternative is likely to be something like 30-50,000 troops committed to a battle that will result in hundreds of American casualties. Are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz willing to own up to that?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/i-want-hear-republican-plan-fighting-isis

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/27/bibipalooza-is-a-dangerous-distraction/

I believe in nuclear non-proliferation and I think every country in the world should disarm their nuclear weapons. I however do not believe that Israel should be the first state to lead the way considering their particular circumstances.

i can't help but think these two statements are essentially contradictory. or rather, the logic underpinning the second statement—when applied to all nation-states, because in fairness it would have to be—obviates the first.

x-post-- Foreign Policy writer makes it sound so easy for US to work with Egypt and get them to enact reforms.

hey, it's worked in the pa-- never mind.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/25/get-over-it-theres-no-better-deal-coming-on-irans-nuclear-program/

As for imposing additional sanctions, there is nothing in the Iranians’ record to suggest that at some level of economic pain they would cry uncle and capitulate to hard-line demands. If this were possible, it would have happened by now after many years of debilitating sanctions.

Maybe Paul Pillar didn't notice but Iran is currently negotiating with the West over its nuclear program exclusively because of the sanctions regime. Also, he speaks very vaguely about questions like - what kind of deals can we get? What kind of deal should we expect, etc,. aka this is a very superficial analysis. There's a big difference between a deal that lets IAEA into only Natanz but not Arak, or that forces Iran to close down some of its centrifuges (though obviously not all), or that forces Iran to disclose the two unexplained alleged explosives tests, or that allows IAEA to inspect any future sites that they find suspicious, or whether they can keep the IR-40 facility at all, not to mention whether they'll actually make concessions regarding their sponsorship of Assad, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc. People who frame the negotiations as 'whatever Obama can get' and 'nothing,' are being very disingenuous imho. There is no guarantee that Obama will get the concessions that he might've been able (and if reports from Iran that US is "begging" them for a deal are correct, that's certainly true). Just remember how Obama has traditionally negotiated with the Republicans and then tell me that you think he is going to get the best deal possible from Iran.

I will confess to not knowing the specifics re sanctions, but I couldn't help but notice that Krauthammer and other cons are all saying just add more sanctions re both Iran and Cuba; they will pay off, just give them time.

Obv there's a balance to be struck but I don't think there's any question that Iran is negotiating w/ P5+1 in large part because they want the sanctions reduced.

In other news: Iraq attempt to regain Tikrit

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/iraq-tikrit-isis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Even victory in Tikrit could come at a great cost, given the prominent role of Shiite militias, which are feared by the Sunni population. The militias are largely controlled by Iran, the region’s dominant Shiite power, and they could widen the country’s sectarian divide, especially if they carry out abuses, as they have done elsewhere.

The United States, in returning to a military role in Iraq, has pushed for reconciliation between Iraq’s Shiite-led government and the minority Sunnis, but there has been little progress. The United States has also insisted that Iraq establish Sunni fighting units to retake and hold Sunni areas, and it warned against Shiite forces invading those areas.

how long have shai and sunni been fighting? on-and-off for 1,400 years? i'm sure some stern words from the US will sort that all out.

"play nice, children!"

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/court-rules-police-must-allow-jewish-prayer-on-temple-mount/2015/03/02/

Unrelated to Temple Mount issue and not trying to compare, but I know someone who was recently in Jerusalem and on a Friday Shabbat watched Hasids spit on tourist who took a picture near the wall; and watched Hasids scream in face of man carrying female toddler who made the mistake of being in the male only portion of the area with a female (albeit a toddler he was carrying)

I didn't see this thread over the weekend but yeah it would be nuts for Israel to disarm first

the Mosul museum stuff is terrible, though maybe that's on some other thread?

they yelled at a guy for carrying his female toddler into the men's section? that's insane.

23 years of imminent kaboom!

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Maybe this was all Obama 18th dimensional chess to get more people to pay attention to Bibi:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/the-cry-being-heard-around-washington-i-need-a-netanyahu-ticket.html?smid=tw-share

For Senator Lindsey Graham, the only ticket more in demand than a seat inside the House chamber for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Tuesday morning would be “if it was Garth Brooks — maybe.”

“The tickets are hotter than fresh latkes,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

Mr. Graham said the White House’s “desire to undercut” Mr. Netanyahu’s visit had simply made it more appealing. “They have made it the most talked about thing in Washington, and I think it blew up in their face,” Mr. Graham said. “Everything he says, people want to hear, and people want to be in that room to listen, they want to be in person. It’s become a historic speech.”

Mr. Boehner’s office said it had received requests for 10 times as many tickets as there are available seats in the gallery, and both the House and the Senate have set up alternate viewing locations that will also require tickets. There will be heightened security throughout the Capitol complex, according to the Capitol police.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/iran-nuclear-talks-tehran-reportedly-calls-obama-demands-threatening-n316211

TEHRAN — Iran's foreign minister accused President Barack Obama of making "unacceptable and threatening" demands during high-stakes talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear program, the semi-official Fars news agency reported Tuesday.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-02/reason-many-you-still-haven-t-decided-vote-me-my-voice

Israelis are clearly torn over Netanyahu's approach as prime minister. But whatever they think of what he says, they can all agree that he sounds great.

Netanyahu's deep voice, polished delivery and flawless American English pack a punch. Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, who's hoping to unseat Netanyahu when Israelis go to the polls in two weeks, doesn't hit quite so hard.

“Israeli people are very concerned about Herzog’s voice,” said Tsfira Grebelsky Lichtman, a communications consultant for some of the top candidates — she wouldn't say which ones — in the upcoming Israeli elections.

“Netanyahu has a very unique and prominent voice in terms of volume, tone and clarity," Lichtman says. "When he goes into a room and says hello, you can’t ignore him. It’s something that creates leadership. As a matter of people’s perceptions, as far as opinion polls that I saw, Herzog’s voice expresses the opposite.”

Herzog is widely perceived as a polite diplomat with a tinny, flat voice. To loosen up his vocal chords, he's taken voice lessons with Israel’s leading voice coach. He even addressed the problem head-on in a campaign ad.

Oy Veh

he went to school here in philly suburbs - attended the same high school at my mom (he was a few years ahead of her)

powerful speech so far I think (whether you agree with his points or not)

i like the point he just made, which is that /this deal/ or /war/ is a false dichotomy designed to make this particular deal seem inevitable

@MichaelCrowley
A "dark, Strangelovian" speech, says Christiane Amanpour

wow the iranian journalist didn't like it?

profiling the Fifth Estate, tsk tsk

...

false dichotomy says the guy who wants war

he said he doesn't want war and i believe that bibi is in general very conservative about such things - i don't think he wants a messy israeli-iran conflict

here's my realpolitik [tm] take on the Bibi speech:

I think Obama has two very bad habits that Bibi's speech may have had a somewhat ameliorative impact upon. One, he's terrible at negotiating deals (see: his entire administration's history with the Republican Party). He doesn't seem to understand leverage, and thinks that good faith efforts are more important than, eg, bargaining from a position of strength. He'll give away the henhouse if he thinks it'll get him a partner 'across the aisle.' Two, if he thinks he can push something through without a lot of attention, he feels no compulsion to be transparent. He's a very secretive dude with a very secretive administration, so putting some attention (even negative attention) on the negotiations might force him to come back w/ something better than he might've hoped to get away with.

i don't think he wants to convince the US to go to war against Iran. i think by, eg, hinting to the military option, he's trying to generate some leverage for the negotiations.

you don't think Bibi's domestic political concerns factor in at all?

Maybe I mean I believe he probably thought it would help his election chances but if anything I'd think the speech ultimately hurt him. But he's been outspoken about Iran for years now. When has the lack of an election ever stopped him from discussing Iranian nukes?

Also he didn't set the negotiating extension for so close to Israeli elections.

Does anyone believe that if the deadline for negotiations was March but the election was next year we wouldn't be hearing from Bibi?