the USA, Israel, and national interest

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"?

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

I beleive we all actually agree on this. How to get to, or nudge towards the 'not again' is the point.

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?

― Mordy, Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:04 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Are you basing your assumptions on something? The "it seems very clear to me that" part? The sanctions, first and foremost, have to do with Iran not letting people in to check up on them. Which doesn't equal that they actually have nuclear weapons ready for use. Stuxnet is pro-level (contra) espionage and bordering on digital warfare, but it doesn't make a case for them having nuclear weapons ready to use.

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

Yes, excellent plan. Bomb away then.

These aren't actually arguments, you know? I get they're kinda snarky retorts in a dialogue but what exactly are either of you trying to prove? a) No one has to suck up anything -- there are a number of options on the table that range from unconventional technological covert actions like Stuxnet to international pressure and sanctions to, at the far end of the scale, something similar to Operation Orchard. b) Yes, bombing Iran is a last resort and one that carries a lot of risk and potential repercussions. No one in this thread (at least certainly not me) is suggesting that bombing Iran is the right thing to do. I don't know what the right thing to do is! But I acknowledge that the equation here -- balancing the potential risks of an airstrike against the potential risks of a nuclear armed Iran -- does not have obvious answers.

if you dont think bombing iran is the right thing to do what are we arguing about

Are you basing your assumptions on something?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-08/middleeast/world_meast_iran-nuclear_1_nuclear-program-iaea-report-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

The International Atomic Energy Agency issued a critical report Tuesday saying that it has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear program and has obtained "credible" information that the Islamic republic may be developing nuclear weapons.

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

"The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program," the report said. "After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device."

I don't know! That's what I was asking these guys. I don't know what they're arguing. I guess they're arguing that an airstrike can never be considered as an appropriate response to Iranian development of nuclear weapons and I'm arguing that it shouldn't be taken off the table.

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.

― Mordy, Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:43 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

Key question is do you believe you/Israel (I'm confused by your usage of "we"), are/is at this point now? Do you support a so-called pre-emptive strike?

I don't have an stake in this one way or another to have an argument. I don't care if Iran gets a nuke (and I wouldn't if I leaved in Israel either). I think more (or alternately less) countries should have nukes btw. But I find the "oooh we care about the safety about our peoples" rhetoric from Israel and the US ridiculous given how little both these countries care about the safety of other peoples.

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"

Mordy and I concurred that Israel is already in a cold war w/Iran. The possibility of another Six Day war + Iraq + Iran is the only way it could turn into another conventional war (I love 'conventional' as an adjective. It makes me think of a bunch of soldiers w/stick-on name tags that say, 'Smile, I'm here to slaughter you) which is highly, highly unlikely given the fraught relations w/Iraq.

Israel holding out the possibility of striking like a cobra-ninja is smart. Actually doing so; less so.

leaved hah lived

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

I am sorry, but this reminds me a little bit too much of Colin Powell's mistake about Iraq. I don't mean the IAEA has a political agenda or stance, but they basically only signal that there is more progress than "previously known".

Options:

International community continues and stiffens sanctions.

Possible results:

Delgitimizes already shakey regime. May cause more internal chaos even among political class. Bad side: Russia unlikely to ever fully support. This is essentially their Monroe doctrine territory and they will be dicks about it.

mordy i think we probably do disagree since your range of options are all "doing something to stop x from happening", which i don't think is possible.

i think we need to start thinking of what life will be like in a world with iran having some kind of nuclear capability, because that world is going to be real at some point. it can be delayed, but probably not stopped, even by bombing. bombing might well hasten it.

this technology is 70 years old, if a nation wants to have a nuclear bomb it can get one. america's ability to cause iranians to want one less is basically zero.

^^^ this

Options:

Israeli strike (for shits and giggles, let's assume success or realtive success - I kind of trust the Tsahal to be pretty badass)

Possible results:
Bad PR pretty much all around including the sovereignty-minded Chinese, the NIMBY Russians and the Arab/Muslim world, much of which is undergoing very useful and helpful reform.

In Iran? Who tf knows but it wont be good amongst the Greens many of whom support Iran being able to do anything that Israel/Russia/France/Britain, etc... can do, not to mention those newcomers in Pakistan.

Ok Max, that's the disagreement. I believe that Israel should do something -- tho I am not saying that something should be an airstrike -- and the other side of the argument here is that Israel shouldn't do anything but prepare for a nuclear armed Iran bc it's inevitable.

If we had been adjacent to the USSR...

Key question is do you believe you/Israel (I'm confused by your usage of "we"), are/is at this point now? Do you support a so-called pre-emptive strike?

― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre)

Ftr, the 'we' in that example is the United States, of which I am a citizen, and not 'we' Israel, of which I am not a citizen.

(I don't believe I've ever used 'we' to describe Israel since I don't consider myself a part of the Israeli State - tho I may have accidentally. I certainly don't consider myself an Israeli in any way and have no plans to make Aliyah now or in the future.)

they could always do both, delaying actions aren't necessarily a bad thing. unless they make the situation worse, which they might.

the 'inevitability' is the crux of it. if the iranian's having a bomb is not inevitable, then all the strategic calculus changes. but i think it basically is.

xp

I'm not sure that I believe that a nuclear weaponized Iran is inevitable. I do believe that a nuclear weaponized Khamenei is preventable tho, and desirable.

Options:

Non-Israeli entity strikes sites (let's assume more or less successfully. Regardless, it will delay the day they actually have anything)

Like Shamir's decision not to respond to Iraqi SCUD provocations, this negates some of the anti-Israeli concentration on the issue and makes it international.

Does it make Iran want nukes less? Not one bit. "Poor us. The world hates us."

Does it keep them from getting one? For the time being.

Domestic Iranian politics? Manna from heaven for the establishment. However, who is the establishment? I think it's increasingly clear that it isn't Ahmedinejhad. Does this expose the mullahs as the un-democratic, un-progressive force that they are in so brutal a way that the people abandon them or do they cleave to them from nationalism? Who tf knows.

Likely? No, but man I would love to see a Republican candidate or just a neo-con squirm on this.

I'm an ex-commie turned moderate liberal, so I think the secret to politics is to make as many ppl as possible as rich (comfortable) as possible and make sure the poor are sufficeintly tended to that they become relatively tame. The problem w/sanctions is they hurt and offend the very people who should be rising against this repressive state. Otoh, the patriotism of an ancient ppl like Iran probably cannot be sounded. They are immensely proud and bitter about the West, going back to Alexander

Some interesting details in this Economist article: http://www.economist.com/node/21538177

It seems like the logistics of carrying out a successful strike would be much more challenging in Iran than they were in Syria in 2007. Also, Iran has more formidable resources to retaliate with.

"Second, Syria’s internal chaos may take Iran’s most important regional ally out of the game. Third, the departure of American forces from Iraq removes both a focus for Iranian retaliation and a constraint on America. Fourth, if Messrs Netanyahu and Barak reckon that they need America’s military might to complete what they start, there may be no better combination to ensure that than a politically weak president whose Republican opponents have made unquestioning support for Israel a wedge issue a year before a presidential election."

I wonder what the thinking Jiddah is, right now?

...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.

Mordy, you have just moved into bed with General Curtis LeMay.

There was clearly a period, post-WWII, when the USSR was seen as a HUGE threat to Europe and, by extension, to the USA. They did not yet have nuclear weapons, but were known to have a development program underway. There were many hawks in the army air force, with LeMay as the most prominent, who strenuously advocated nuking the living shit out of the USSR, asap, purely on the grounds that they'd soon have nukes themselves and we'd lose our strategic edge of being the sole nuclear power.

No provocation for this war was suggested, other than we could probably win if we got on it quickly enough, but if we waited, we'd be SOL and the commies would be nuclear, too.

Afaics, that argument is precisely in alignment with your thinking.

Sure, except for the part that I'm not advocating nuking anyone.

And that I'm not saying that Israel should perform airstrikes to keep their status as the only nuke possessing nation but to mediate the possible ramifications of a particular administration in a particular country developing nukes.

Act of war. You never know where that's going to lead.

what exactly are you advocating mordy

So what's your argument? That any advocation of using military strength for any purpose is synonymous with advocating nuking another country to maintain your hegemony?

If Iran agreed to cancel all civilian and military nuclear activity, with UN inspection teams, western troops to guarantee Israel's safety blah blah, in return for Israel's nuclear disarmament, what do you think Israel's response would be?

xp to darraghmac

Yes, bombing Iran is a last resort and one that carries a lot of risk and potential repercussions. No one in this thread (at least certainly not me) is suggesting that bombing Iran is the right thing to do. I don't know what the right thing to do is! But I acknowledge that the equation here -- balancing the potential risks of an airstrike against the potential risks of a nuclear armed Iran -- does not have obvious answers.

I think they would continue to deny that they possess nuclear weapons. xp

Mordy's advocating airstrikes, apparently. Dropping bombs on Iran. Very large bombs, but only conventional high explosive ones, presumably. Then, afterwards... ? Everything goes back to normal, right?

What's your opinion of such denials, Mord? (I sympathise with you being the only one in your corner, don't wish to appear that I'm piling on or anything)

Like do I think those denials are... what? Ethically correct? Politically expedient? Regionally important?

Aimless, please show me something I wrote that indicates that I'm advocating dropping large bombs on Iran?

All three really - if you were in charge of Israel's policies would you deny having nuclear weapons? If so, why?

I'm not saying that Israel should perform airstrikes to keep their status as the only nuke possessing nation but to mediate the possible ramifications of a particular administration in a particular country developing nukes.

To clarify the syntax:

Israel should not perform airstrikes to do X, but {Israel should perform them} to do Y. You may not have meant it that way. I don't know. But this is what you wrote.