-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Marc Lynch
Monday, August 23, 2010 - 3:07 PM
Share
This morning, I posted my first contribution to the Atlantic's online debate about Jeffrey Goldberg's much-debated cover story on whether Israel will attack Iran. I take Goldberg's reporting seriously, particularly since I have heard many similar comments from both U.S. and Israeli officials. That's precisely why I believe that it's important to engage the argument for an attack on Iran head on.... now, rather than after a bad decision has already been made. What do I think? Well, the title chosen by the editors doesn't leave much to the imagination: "Striking Iran is Unwarranted and It Would Mean Disaster." I argue that "the argument for a military strike on Iran remains weak, with massive potential negative effects, very limited prospects for significant positive impact, and much less urgency than its proponents claim. It is Obama's sound strategic judgement, not his lack of will, which makes an attack unlikely." The entire debate has been instructive.
The debate about Goldberg's article over the last couple of weeks has been quite robust --- both the give and take among the eight panelists assembled by the Atlantic, and the broader discussion across the blogosphere which has been regularly rounded up in editor JJ Gould's daily summaries. Gould has done an impressive job of orchestrating actual dialogue across analytical divides (Elliott Abrams is scheduled to respond to my post soon, and I am supposed to respond to Reuel Gerecht's post after he publishes it in a few days). And, while I'm at it, a special shout-out to Goldberg for his strong stance on the New York mosque craziness --- he has been a strong voice, and a brave one.
Contrary to the complaint by skeptics like the Leveretts that since they weren't included the debate could only be an "echo chamber" (for the record, we published their take on the Middle East Channel here), many of the panelists have pushed back hard. Some, like Gerecht, do indeed argue for military action. But the general trend of the discussion is best captured by former State Department official Nicholas Burns, who came away "more convinced than ever that a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be potentially disastrous for U.S. interests. At worst, it could lead to a third war in the greater Middle East without the benefit of stopping Iran's nuclear program. It makes much more sense for Obama to stick to his bet that a combination of diplomacy and toughness might yet compel Tehran to yield." Gary Milhollin doubts that an attack would really have a decisive impact on the Iranian nuclear program, while Robin Wright argues that we are "nowhere near the point of no return." Some echo chamber. Add in the vibrant debate across many other sites (which I won't try to summarize for fear of offending those whose contributions I leave out), and I'd say that Goldberg's article has succeeded not in paving the way for military action but in focusing attention on the issue in such a way as to make an attack less likely.
While I'm not going to reproduce my whole essay here, here are some of the major points:
- a military strike is not likely to put an end to Iran's nuclear potential, or to provide any significant sense of certainty (I do not find Goldberg's notion of Israeli commandos quickly darting in from Iraqi Kurdistan to check things out especially reassuring).
- the idea Israel has a fixed deadline is not credible. Israeli officials and American Iran hawks have paraded a never-ending series of such immutable deadlines over the last decade -- of 2006, of 2007, of 2008, and now of December 2010. None proved quite so immutable.
- the costs could be high: a strike by Americans or Israelis could trigger a wave of regional chaos, badly weaken the already struggling Green Movement, and seriously complicate the U.S. drawdown from Iraq. It would prove the death-knell for Obama's efforts to construct a new relationship with the Muslim communities of the world, trigger a wave of anti-American rage among Arab publics, deeply complicate the tentative moves towards Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
- The "war bluff" argument -- that we will be most effective at diplomacy if we can credibly threaten force, with Israel playing the "bad cop" to force Iran to deal with the American "good cop" -- only works if there is adequate trust between the U.S. and Israel. This is why the Obama administration has taken to consulting so regularly and at such high levels with Israel, in order to ensure that communication is clear and consistent. Goldberg's suggestion that Israeli officials would nevertheless be prepared to spring such a surprise undermines that trust.
- If Israel truly felt such existential urgency, then wouldn't it be willing to make concessions on Gaza or the peace process in order to build international support and sympathy? If Israel hopes to build an international consensus, this has been an odd way to go about it.
- Much of the alleged urgency to attack Iran is rooted in an oddly anachronistic view of rising Iranian power in the region. But in fact, Iran's image and influence have been in retreat in the region during much of Obama's administration. Obama's initial outreach challenged the Iranian regime, which had grown quite comfortable in dealing with the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric dividing the region into moderate and radical camps -- which had the self-defeating effect of ceding the popular mantle of "resistance" to Iran by default. But Iran today is isolated and beleaguered within the region, and has proven unable to capitalize on Obama's declining popularity or U.S. policy mistakes.
- That the leadership of most Gulf states remains deeply suspicious of Iran, and that the Saudi-owned media is full of anti-Iranian commentary and reporting, is nothing new. But compared to two years ago, Iran's position with Arab publics and the "resistance" trend is also far weaker. Turkey now offers a far more attractive -- and effective -- brand of "resistance", with its advanced economy, moderate Islamist and fully democratic politics, and creative diplomacy. Meanwhile, the botched aftermath of the Iranian elections and the repression of the Green Movement -- heavily covered by al-Jazeera and other popular Arab media --- badly harmed its image with Arab publics. An Israeli or American attack on Iran would almost certainly bring these publics intensely back to Iran's side, though, rescuing them from their own decline.
- The hostility to Iran in various Arab circles should not lead anyone to believe that Arabs would support an attack on Iran by the U.S. or Israel, however (see MEC editor Amjad Atallah's excellent post on this here). While Arab leaders would certainly like Iranian influence checked, they generally strongly oppose military action which could expose them to retaliation. Arab leaders will likely continue to welcome any efforts to contain Iranian power, particularly when it takes the form of major arms deals and political support. And they will likely continue to mutter and complain about America's failure to magically solve their problems for them. But those who expect these regimes to take a leading, public role in an attack on Iran are likely to be disappointed -- especially if there is still no progress on the peace process.
There's more, including a strong warning to not repeat the experience of 2002: as a general rule, beware of those claiming that there are no options other than war and that time is running out, that the benefits of an attack will be high and the costs low, and that it won't affect other important issues. Hopefully we've learned something. More on the debate later this week, when it officially wraps up.
UPDATE: Elliott Abrams responds by complaining that I blame Israel for everything, while declining to engage with any of my actual arguments. How disappointing -- for some reason, I have to admit that I expected better.
AFP/Getty Images
I think the Leveretts object to the Atlantic's failure to include in this discussion anyone who accepts Ahmedinejad government statements at face value and shares that government's indignation at those who do not.
I agree that the inclusion of one such commentator would enliven the Atlantic's discussion. It would also allow me to open my store room of Three Stooges jokes, which I've never been able to do with the Leveretts because there are only two of them.
A response to Professor Lynch's point #5
"If Israel truly felt such existential urgency, then wouldn't it be willing to make concessions on Gaza or the peace process in order to build international support and sympathy? If Israel hopes to build an international consensus, this has been an odd way to go about it."
.
.
Here's the rub, former Clinton Sec. of Defense William Cohen was quoted this past week about Iran's stance on the destruction of Israel. Cohen apparently faced off in a press conference with an Iranian minister recently and raised the hypothetical question of whether Iran would recognize Israel as a legitimate state should it reach an acceptable peace agreement with the Palestinians. The Iranian response was that Iran would recognize the new Palestinian state. Silence was the response as to its acceptance of Israel.
.
.
The issue of whether or not Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a threat to the world has reached a consensus regardless of what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank. There is already a consensus in the Western world, which considers this pursuit by Iran to be a critical threat. It has been stated by the United States, by major European powers, and by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA).
Well True tell the answers are obvious
First, South Africa was never declared an illigitimate state by the UN as the Jew-haters attempt to do with Israel. Indeed, the UN continued to Recognize Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, current day Iran, North Korea, East Germany, Castro's Cuba, and a host of other nations that have done great harm to its own citizens. Indeed, Saudia Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somolia, are all members in good standing with the UN.
.
.
The key though to my point above is that even IF Israel and the Palestinians reach a mutually acceptable peace treaty, Iran will STILL REFUSE to recognize Israel as a legitimate state and call for its ultimate destruction.
Sorry True Tell, but you need to learn more about Israeli
politics. Netanyahu and Lieberman are hardly religious fanatics, unless you describe all Israeli's in that category.
.
.
Reality though is far different. Israel, unlike Iran, has never called for the destruction of another state. Rather, it has, throughout the course of its existance, repeatedly searched and attempted to obtain peace with its neighbors. Indeed, given the host of enemies that have repeatedly called for its destruction and the death of its citizens, Israel has shown significant restraint with any WMD's it may possess.
One has to wonder if Professor Lynch actually did his homework
and read Mr. Goldberg's article. He sounds more like a combination administration cheerleader and doom sayer than provider of solutions.
.
.
The most notable point is the seriousness of Israeli concern over Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. To quote Goldberg "It is this line of thinking, which suggests that rational deterrence theory, or the threat of mutual assured destruction, might not apply in the case of Iran, that has the Israeli government on a knife's edge. And this worry is not confined to Israel's right. Even the left-wing Meretz Party, which is harsh in its condemnation of Netanyahu's policies towards the Palestinians, considers Iran's nuclear program to be an existential threat."
.
MERETZ!?! holds this line of thinking. Not just Kadima, or the left-wing Labor, but the far left, most peace oriented party in Israel considers Iran a real threat.
The article as a whole was good, except for one major omission: it fails to consider the nuclear threat now deployed against Iran. The US and UK are actively at war in two nations bordering Iran, and collectively have deployed large numbers of weapons platforms capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Israel has often also sent a nuclear armed submarine off the coast of Iran, and let it be publicly known that its primary mission is to be able to nuke Iran. (Israel has been doing this for at least seven years. And, amazingly, Egypt has aided Israel in doing this.) Of course, while none of these nuclear powers have been threatened by Iran, they are all openly hostile to Iran.
It is clear that Iran needs a credible nuclear weapons capability. Despite rhetoric from the axis of Washington, Jerusalem, and London, the axis is, by actions rather than words, strongly driving Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
The best way to stop an Iranian nuclear weapons program from beginning or continuing (whichever case it may be) would be to step down the threat deployed against Iran. An even stronger enticement would be for the axis to stop waging foreign wars, including that against Palestine.
A conventional strike on nuclear materials is radiological war
A conventional strike on nuclear materials would be radiological warfare. The tactical proposal is to scatter the semi-enriched uranium so widely that it can't be salvaged. Because the feedstock for enrichment is compressed U-hexaflouride gas, breach of containment using explosives could scatter tons of it very widely, poisoning land, water, animals, food, and people on a Chernobyl scale. It is nothing like Osirak, where there was no uranium.
If a non-signatory of the NPT like Israel threatens such an attack, conducted nearly a thousand miles across several borders and the Gulf, it goes far beyond diplomacy or defense. It starts to look like terror itself, nuclear blackmail.
As in 'BALANCED VIEW's breath of coherent analysis above, any true friend of nuclear Israel (or Arabs, or Persians) has to think on a multi-generational time scale, hope they chart a path to peaceful coexistence, instead of threats, brinksmanship and radiological escalation. Conducting a war of choice (not preemption!) that is intended to escalate fear of further proliferation to the radiological warfare level would be a horrible precedent for Israel to set, and a disaster for the economies of all oil importing countries, with high risk of global depression and famine.
IMO the folks calling names above should be 86'd, not allowed to pollute and disrupt this forum.
Attacking iran would be economically devastating of the US
I made the mistake of not reading enough of Nippon and truth tells other comments to realize that they are both paranoid, racists, (coming from opposite ends of the spectrurm) and as such, not worth responding to.
I will offer this post again, as a general post on the subject, as I feel that it spells out our real motivations for ANY action in the middle east, and also makes it clear that any unwarranted attack on Iran (they do not threaten us or Israel in the least) would be disastrous for us. So disastrous, in fact, that we should take military action to prevent Israel from doing so if they would ever try it themselves.
However, I strongly doubt that we would ever allow it to happen in the first place, for the reasons outlined below.
repost;
We are in the middle east ( and by In, I mean militarily, financially, and diplomatically) because of Oil. Not, however, to steal it (at least in any conventional sense) but rather to ensure that it flows regularly, and at a reasonable (Low?) price for us, as it is a matter of national security that low price and availability remain constantly in place.
We do a variety of things in order to accomplish this; from seemingly benign to utterly horrific.
To suggest that we are supporting "Arab" interests, or even Israeli interests in doing so misses the point entirely; we are there for OUR interests, and we use both Arabs and Israelis in order to accomplish this.
Is it a finely tuned plan? Not by any stretch of the imagination. It is, however, an ongoing initiative which crosses all party lines and supersedes any apparent allegiance to the regimes in either oil producing nations or Israel, and must be constantly pursued, lest we be put into a situation in which oil availability in the world market is crimped by a a major interruption of any significant length, which would send us into an economic tail spin, leading to a major depression, as just about the entire US economy is dependent on the price of oil in some way.
So, attacking Iran would be a DISASTROUS move, in that it would be easy for Iran to engage in a guerrilla war that would bring gulf traffic to a crawl, and bring the price of oil to stars world wide.
regarding unreasonable support of Israels most self destructive behaviors, we do so simply to remain tied to a country which operates as an important base of operations in some respects for us, and which, under catastrophic circumstances would be a an even more important base of operations. Do we really "care" about them? Well, who did we "care" for more; Saddam Hussein , who we financed, armed and encouraged to go to war with Iran, or Iran, whom we secretly sold arms to at the same time because we really never wanted Saddam to win the war in the first place, because he was, after all, a complete lunatic with ideas we really never wanted to see come to fruition.
One of you says its; about Israel. The other says it's all about Arab nations. It is about neither.
It is about us, the US. Did it not ever occur to either of you how utterly transparent the lies that were used to get into Iraq were? Saddam was utterly controlled, and we had complete air supremacy. Almost every other nation on earth literally scoffed at the idea that Saddam was a threat of any type. Conversely, Pakistan, at the time, HAD Nukes, Hated the US, Sold Nuke tech to Iran and North Korea, and became the home of Bin laden, the Taliban's leadership, and tens of thousands of terrorist supporters. Its military supported the Nuke tech sales, and sympathized with Al qeada. Yet, we attacked Iraq, who had less Al qeada members in it at the time than the US did.
Why? it allowed us to Push Saddam over in a direction that suited our interests (as opposed to having him be taken out and replaced with uncontrolled chaos not of our own making (possibly shutting down gulf traffic) and, more importantly, allowed us to insert 150,000 Us soldiers into the region in a strategically important area at a time when we felt extremely vulnerable. Now this might seem to fit the aspirations of the Neocon's or ultra right wing Israelis, and it also seems to fit the aspirations of certain Arab, oil producing nations, but in the end, it was done strictly to meet the goals of the US, the goal to ensure the price and availability of oil on the world market.
Furthermore, When oil is no longer important ( at least on the national security level) It will QUICKLY become apparent that we have virtually no unbreakable ties to either Israel or any oil producing nations. We will withdraw military, financial and diplomatic support of the entire region, Arab nations and Israel alike, even as it descends into chaos when the oil economy tanks for good. Do either of you HONESTLY believe that we do otherwise?
Just so that you are aware, I am vociferously critical of the Israeli settlements program and the occupation that supports it, and I believe that it inspires needless terror against both Israel and the US alike. Beyond that, I have no problem with green line Israel whatsoever. I believe that it would have a very positive impact for them to end the settlements for good, but even if that happens, we are still going to be in the middle east for precisely the reasons that I outline above.
However, when oil is no longer a US security issue and we leave the region, If Israel has NOT made peace with its neighbors, they will be the focus of a great deal more hatred than they face now, as the region will be awash in chaos looking for a scapegoat. If Israel has made peace and normalized relations, they might be part of the solution. If they remain in their current situation or worse, they will find that they are on their own, as we would NEVER spend the kind of money that it would take to safeguard Israel under those circumstances when we have no other reason to have hundreds of thousands of troops in the region and hundreds of billions of assets already committed to the region for OUR interests. You will see the power of the lobby at that point minus the need for US oil price security; None.
If US politicians and supporters of Israel ACTUALLY care about the future and security of Israel, they ought to look just far enough into the future to see that everything they are fighting to cover for now (the settlements, ect) will spell the end of Israel when we leave the region after oil. In how many year? twenty, thirty, or maybe five, if there is some unexpected breakthrough? Can any of them honestly claim t support Israel with a straight face if they are unable to see that far into the future, a future that is virtually inevitable?
You seem to be confusing the distractable nature of the American people (like sheep, really) with the very real, life or death mandate that every presidential administration (regardless of party or philosophy) is faced with when they enter office; the overarching need to maintain world oil availability and price in order to safeguard the US economy from catastrophic economic collapse. They almost never actually consult the american people about the actions that they take in this regard.
Which of us voters had anything to do with arming Saddam against Iran? Arming Iran against Saddam (simultaneously)? Which of us had anything to do with the overthrow of the only secular democratically elected leader in the middle ans replacing him with the Shah?
With regard to the latest Iraq war, did it really come down to an actual bad decision made by imperfect and distractable people, or was it a very calculated set of (in retrospect OBVIOUS) lies that just about no other nation on earth found acceptable other than the American people and a few of our allies?
The big picture is that above all the short term subterfuge and game playing, we have been, and will be, IN the middle east in a very big way strictly in order to safeguard our interests there, and it has nothing to do with the will of our people, as they are almost never consulted (or consulted fairly) on the things that really matter.
This simply appears to be aligned with Radical right Israeli interests and with the desires of certain Arab oil producing nations, but when oil is no longer important, their relative ability to keep all of the US troops, weapons, diplomatic pressure and MONEY to keep things in the middle east more or less the way they are will suddenly be revealed to be what it has been all along; utterly insufficient by itself.
That is not to say that we should not still force Israel to be a better neighbor in the region. It would make our already extremely difficult and inexact job somewhat easier and would go a long way towards giving them a shot at a future after our national security level interest in oil price and availability wanes in response to some new energy tech breakthroughs.
regarding Iran, Israels current ultra right wing government is chomping at the bit to attack Iran, as it would give them the ability (during the fog of regional war that WE would largely be carrying) to go all out against their enemies in a manner that they are restrained from engaging in now. They would almost certainly use this as an opportunity to finally ethnically cleanse the West Bank and East Jerusalem, either through mass bombings or through forced transfer across neighboring borders. God knows what happens to Syria and Lebanon.
Is attacking Iran, and setting off this chain of events an insane proposition? Yes, and because it would dramatically threaten the US economy in a manner utterly counter to the imperatives that I have laid out above, I doubt it will happen. But, because we falsely prop up an ultra right wing power base in Israel who would actually be capable of 1) running the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement and 2) aspiring to set off a brutal regional war for the purpose of ethnically cleansing the occupied territories, This is some of the blowback that we Face. God willing, we are in control of the situation enough to prevent the settler supporting Nutjobs in Israel (Lieberman and Netanyahu) from ever acting on this madness.
It would be disastrous for the US, and ultimately for Israel as well.
ABV, see post above re literal fallout
Your oil/diplomacy analysis seems spot on. It's about flow and price, not just ownership. Hormuz is the Canal to energy, and we guarantee global access, or else. Neither US public nor Congress really gets a vote on what is an international oil policy, going back the two-faced Iran-Iraq arms sales, and Kermit Roosevelt's coup agin Mossedegh before that.
It has also occurred to me that the Likudnik drumbeat for war on Iran is partly about momentum for other war plans, S. Lebanon being most pressing. If/when the Israelis invade Lebanon again, it may come as a relief that they didn't go radiological in the Gulf.
Re wag-the-dog paranoia, US Evangelicals have bought into the David/Samson myth bigtime, and they do vote way above their weight in absolute numbers, leveraging many along with them. Last week I heard a self-avowed lesbian conservative advocating blind support for the Chosen People. My conservative Baptist relatives wouldn't agree to being chosen by a lesbian deity, but they'll vote the same way, in the booth.
The way to solve the Iranian problem
The US should declare tomorrow that it is opening all areas in and around the continental U.S for oil drilling and gas and that it is building 50 nuclear powerplants. Send the enviromntalists like al Gore to hell on his private plane and 30000$ a month electricity bill or a one way ticket to the amazon if they want to feel green.
Just the news of The U.S tapping into it's huge oil reserves would make oil prices drop rapidly into a low that has not been seen for ages and within 5 years when we actually start producing the oil in good capacity the prices would drop even more and we will get leverage over these so called Arab allies who we are friends with for oil . The Iranian regime is surviving because the gas prices are so high if the price will drop significantly teir economy will break very quickly, same thing with Russia .
It is really about time we do something about this terrible addiction, the enviromentalists can go to scandinavia if they like , we can't be funding all the terrorists and fighting them at the same time
Supply and Demand is universal in the marketplace Arvay
The United States constitutes about 25% of the daily global oil consumption.
.
.
Reduction in US consumption reduces overall demand and would lead to an increase in the global supply. Lower overall demand results in lower prices as suppliers seek to sell their growing inventories. Since Iran relies on its export of oil to subsidize its economy, a drop in oil prices reduces the regime's bank account and inflow of funds. At a certain point, the bank account hits zero and the government either needs to borrow from outside lenders to pay its populace off, or do without.
.
Since Iran is now subject to growing economic sanctions, including interaction with financial intermediaries, ie. banks, it's going to be difficult to float a large international bond issue, or get some major money-center bank to provide a credit line for the Mullah's.
.
.
Linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a nuclear Iran
Lynch turns into a moonbat in 1 sentence:
"If Israel truly felt such existential urgency, then wouldn't it be willing to make concessions on Gaza or the peace process in order to build international support and sympathy?"
Right, so disengaging from Gaza, delivering billions of pounds of humanitarian aid to an enemy that wants to destroy Israel, pretty much bended over backwards for Obama's dubious demand of a "settlement freeze" without placing an equal demand on the Palestinians.
But regardless, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is irrelevant to a nuclear Iran. Why should Israel expose itself to more violence to please the international community? As if the international community is some innocent child that must be persuaded by Israel's grand gestures to Gaza and the "peace process" before it grows a moral compass.
the gist of his article is that Israel is paranoid, the Arabs haven't been secretly collaborating with Israel to attack Iran, and in the end the world will be better off, or something.
In other news, the world is flat, peanut butter is jelly, Islamists are peace activists and a nuclear-armed fundamentalist regime bent on the destruction of an historic US ally is nothing to be concerned about.
Go back to Palestine Lynch, Hamas is calling you. They're ready to deliver you your cheque.
There is no connection between Israel Palestinians and Iran
The Iranians can care less about Palestinians because if they truely did they would not be trying to ruin every prospect of peace in the region by activating their terror proxies. Where would they export the revolution to if there is peace.?
Second the Iranians care a lot more about the arab states rather than Israel there is a long Rivalry going on between Sunna and SHia, which has been going on for a long time and they Iranians have been feeling like they were robbed of their leading role in the muslim world , they want to bring back the old days of the empire. They want to be the leading power in the region.
One sunni clerik said he would rather marry his doughter to a jew rather than a shia.
Is israel the one to blame for the horrific murders and rivalry going on between sunna and Shia ( who was the right calif). Look at Iraq the Iranians are sponsoring the shias saudis the sunna Turks and syrians are meddling. That is why the arab gulf states are shaking, they are the first ones in the line of fire they are closer.and we are stronger.
If Israel would dissapear tomorrow is there going to be peace in Iran even between the hamas and fatach? Would the Iranians give up their nuclear program? Their regional ambitions?
To say that the palestinian isssue is related to the Iranian issue is complete nonsense if anything it make Israel and the arab states see eye to eye more about the region the arabs realized that Israel is not a threat to them like Iran.
People like this journalist and the leftie media who dont understand the region and make it seem like Israel and palestinians are the issue that makes the world go round are just clueless. Iran is a global issue and a world threat Israel is a little closer than you hpefully you wont have to find out the hard way.
Lol@the zionist talking point parrot
Disengaging Gaza? Sure we'll leave Gaza but we'll control the air sea, and ground but we're "disengaging"
Delivering billions of pound of aid? even a lying zionist like you doesn't buy this line, when America comes out and tells Israel to end the blockade you know the zionists are lying about providing aid, collective punishment is a war crime, bombing women and children hiding in a UN school is a war crime but I'm sure those things must of slipped your mind.
Moral compass? A modern day occupation/apartheid state that murders women and children using white phosphorus with impunity has a moral compass now? LOL I don't think the majority of the world community that lives in peace with its neighbors needs any lectures from zionist war criminals about morals.
In other news Israel is a democracy and not run by right wing extremists zionists, settlers are peace loving neighbors that don't carry guns and would never steal any land, Israel isn't occupying Pals, and Israel isn't a nuclear armed fundamentalist fascist regime bent on starting WWIII.
Go back to your idf handlers they have a check for you :)
Don't hijack the article into some anti-Zionist fantasy propaganda.
Lynch is just another delusional leftist who thinks the middle east revolves around Israel and the Palestinians.
Cali dude is just frothing at the mouth with Jew-hatred
he makes Israel sound like Somalia. I doubt he could locate either place on a map. Totally inaccurate fantasies are what he seems to be typing about.
Not every country runs on a war economy like the US, and even then, it's a state of affairs that cannot hold indefinitely...any sort of shooting war in the Middle East that involves Israel will trigger a global economic meltdown and launch a purely reactive period of hyperinflation (commodities way, way up and currencies way, way down). Furthermore, Israelis face yet another Exodus if it gets into another shooting war because long-lines of dual-citizens will head for the exits, maybe never to return.
Bush the Elder flat-out insisted that israel stay out of Gulf War I...there wasn't even a question of allowing Israel any part whatsoever because Bush understood that the Middle East is a numbers game...and who has the numbers and who has the oil? Not Israel. And Israel, though it has a powerful lobby in the U.S., risks becoming a serious pest, irregardless of religious sentiment. Manufacturing consent for an attack, especially in these turbulent and fragile economic times, may well break the relationship outright...the U.S. Joint Chiefs committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, both with seriously diminished central governments, but Iran is a fish too big for the pan and they know it. .
As my old Econ prof would say "There's no free lunch"
.
.
Thing is, this goes for Iran as much as it does for The US and the Western world, including Israel.
.
Here's the rub. While Iran can shut down the straits of Hormuz, thus preventing the export of oil from the Persian Gulf (mainly to Asia, but also to Europe), such an act would also result in Iran shutting down the import of refined gasoline to the Islamic Republic. Given that Iran imports 40% of its refined gas, it would not be long before the country literally ground to a halt. Given that the Iranian government also heavily subsidizes the purchase of gasoline would mean that Iranians would burst a gasket as prices of the scarce commodity shot through the roof.
.
.
As for Israeli participation in Gulf War I, Israel had no interest in joining an Arab coalition to push Saddam out of Quwait. However, there remains an open question as to whether or not Israel should not have retaliated independently for Iraq's Scud attacks on Israel. As it was, the common wisdom of the day was that the US was already pounding the tar out of Saddam's army, and that an Israeli strike would have been superflous given the massive military assault underway. However, to help offset such a risk, the US rushed batteries of Patriot missiles to Israel to help try to stop the Scud launches.
.
Before declaring Israel some form of pest, realize that the US has increased its relationship and contact with the Isreali military so that the improved communication and intelligence can help improve credibility from both sides and provide their leaderships with better information to make improved decisions, such as to attack or not, or, in the event that an attack is launched, to better coordinate amongst allies.
...and who has the numbers and who has the oil? Not Israel.
Iran already lives under sanctions...if self-preservation means more hardship, don't doubt that they're all for it, as any country would be in the same position. The biggest 'existential' threat to Israel remains a continuance of the Palestinian problem...Gen. Petraeus said as much before congress. For the longest time I thought an Iran strike was imminent, but now I will admit I'm not sure...it's a gamble totally loaded with 'blowback', and likely wouldn't achieve much favourable to Israel. I'm looking at it purely from a strategic standpoint and backing no horse in the race. Israel's future hinges on achieving some level of prolonged stability, which it has never enjoyed. Getting rid of I'madinnerjacket by force risks promoting someone even worse, and we know that is entirely possible.
Canada has the oil.
.
As for the numbers, what numbers? Body count? GDP?
.
Reality is, Israel, despite the "lack of stability" thanks to its neighbors, has managed to grow its own GDP my magnitudes to the point where it is now a member of the OECD and an economy that's tipping around the $200 billion mark.
.
The reality is, the Palestinians ability to cause trouble in Israel is limited only by Israel's willingness to not use force. Realize that Yasser Arafat's last war lasted only as long as Israel limited the IDF. When Defensive Shield was put into place, along with the seperation barrier, the attacks crumbled. So too with Gaza. HAMAS was only able to launch several thousand rockets just as long as Israel was willing to put up with it.
.
The reality is, the longer the Palestinians decide to hold out for their maximalist positions, the worse their negotiating stance gets becuase the world continues to move forward and as we have seen, there are no shortage of problems facing mankind. Floods in Pakistan and China, Earthquakes in Hati, global warming, pollution, the economy, Flu viruses, pick a topic.
.
Look at it this way. The Kurds have been fighting for an independent state of their own for the same amount of time as the Palesitnians, and the world hasn't hiccupped once for them.
Sir, I have tried to be objective but clearly in your eyes Israel can do no wrong and that everything is everyone else's fault. Good luck with that. Building more and more settlements on disputed land (sorry, but the rest of the world does consider it disputed land) is no recipe for peace, and caging an entire population is not a sound long-term strategy. Despite what you may think, the rest of the world is not stupid...our governments may be, but the average person always cheers for the underdog. That used to be Israel, but it clearly isn't anymore.
Israel is an experiment, one destined for failure unless some actual leaders of vision come forth on both sides. Long-term, the numbers (population) just aren't on your side. As it is, Israelis are fighting amongst themselves now over who is a jew and who isn't...if that keeps up for much longer, the collapse will be from within and it'll be absolute. Any student of history will tell you that Israel has about as much security as a Crusader enclave...the quality of the defenses was only as good as the quality of the leadership.
Peace.
Lynch and "arfiticial deadlines"
One has to ask what is running through his mind when he complains that Israel is forcing Obama to "succumb to artificial deadlines".
.
.
Pray tell, just what is the "natural" deadline for an attack on Iran? Before or after it has launched a missile at Israel?
.
.
So sorry that the "Israeli clock" appears to be disruptive to you. But let's remember, Iran is targeting Israel for ultimate destruction. Obviously the threat is a bit different to them than it is to the US.
.
Also, spare us the oggling over the Netanyahu phsyc profile and see it for what it is, rather than some father-approval deal. Learn to understand what the Inquisition means for him and what the Shoah means to him. Then perhaps you will understand what Goldberg is talking about when he says that Netanyahu is aware of the threat to Israel.
Take out Iran's nuke program and make them pay a very dear price
Critics predicted the worst if Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor but Israel destroyed it in 1981 and Saddam did not retaliate and critics also predicted war if Israel destroyed Syria's nuclear facilities but Israel destroyed them and Syria remained silent. This time, however, is very, very different.
The Iranians are like a rabid dog and are likely to strike Israeli and Jewish interests all around the world. They blew up the Israeli embassy and a Jewish cultural center in Argentina several years ago killing dozens of people. They are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and have supplied the insurgents and Taliban with i.u.d's and other weapons.
Am I in favor of taking out Iran's nuclear program. YES. However, nothing should be done unless and until America and Israel have plans in place to make absolutely certain to Iran that any counterattack against American troops or Israel's cities will be met with a devastating attack against Iran's military and infrastructure. If we are going to bomb the nuclear reactor then we must make Iran pay a severe price to their military and take out their airforce, navy, and communications and their oil industry. We should not proceed unless we are willing and able to immediately take measures to prevent an Iranian response that could harm America or Israel. It would be insane to take out the Iranian nuclear plants without taking making the Iranian military pay a very dear price at the same time. Does Obama have the cojones for this? Everything he has shown the past two years is no. Obama is more Carter in foreign policy and we all know where they got us in Iran.
Antisemitism is pretty contagious eh?
Why don't you grow a pair and realize Jews don't own the world and you are not a victim to Israel's existence. Too bad people like Lynch aren't held accountable for their poor scholarship.
This calidude is an antisemite
making obscene comments. can't someone moderate him and get him off this board already?
Iran's involvement in terrorism is very broad.
Between 1980-2000 Iran was involved in at least 260 terror attacks. Although Iran is trying to not leave "fingerprints" the responsibility is clear for hundreds of attacks, including hostage-taking, aircraft hijacking, car bombs, suicide bombers and much more.
6 attacks in London On because of Salman Rushdi case. Attacks in Germany like the one on Mikonos café, kidnapping of two Air-France aircrafts in 84, Attacks in Saudi-Arabia on Pilgrimage to Meca, attacks on oil facilities in Kuwait, murders of journalists who opposed "exporting of revolution" in Turkey, help to equip Hezbollah, help to equip Shia rebels in Yaman to fight the Yamani forces, training rebels in Eritrea, and so on the list is endless.
The Iranians are playing double game and trying not to reveal its involvement to confuse you. Meanwhile they build weapon of mass destruction and long-term ground ballistic missiles.
world leaders from all colors and shades from all faiths to convene conference and save world from total destruction.
Abrams does address arguments, Marc is being dishonest here
Abrams doesn't address every point, but he certainly addresses some. Perhaps he is picking the low hanging fruit of Marc's weakest arguments, but he is still on point. To simply dismiss him as "declining to engage with any of my actual arguments" is untrue and dishonest.
So -- How disappointing - for some reason, I have to admit that I expected better -- back at'cha, Marc.
I can't believe in these scenarios. I am adventure tours guide, but... Sorry for my scepticism but Israeli politicans course is like a drunk driver in off road driving trail.
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE