Not Just Any Major Dude Will Tell You
Maybe I’m straying into #slatepitches territory, but the more I think about Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic article on the Israeli threat to commit an act of war against Iran, the better I think it is. Robert Wright’s rejoinder can be read as making a similar argument to my own.
People complain because Goldberg serves in the article as a mouthpiece for the hawkish establishment of Israel, especially PM Netanyahu and his circle. He’s too close to them. He doesn’t present the critiques of Israel’s propaganda campaign forcefully enough. And, hey, yeah.
At the same time, in Goldberg’s article, all on its own, Israel’s policy-makers condemn themselves out of their own mouth. If all you had was “The Point of No Return” and a brain, you would have everything you need to judge Israel’s case for bombing Iran as unjustified and immoral. In fact, there are truths in Goldberg’s article that appear almost nowhere else in the USA’s establishment media:
* Netanyahu has no intention whatsoever of implementing a two-state solution – at best he might take steps in that direction once his revanchist Daddy is dead;
* Netanyahu regrets the few partial steps he took under American pressure to comply with any smidgen of the spirit or letter of the Oslo agreements;
* Hardly anybody important in the Israeli government really believes that Iran would use nuclear weapons if Iran in fact develop them;
* Many don’t even worry that Iranian nukes would make it impossible for Israel to respond conventionally to Iranian “provocations” – rather, they want to go to war against a foreign country* for extremely speculative concerns about “brain drain” that are so time-dilated one suspects Iran might be deploying its nukes in near-orbit around Cygnus X-1;
* And by the way, as a child of the MAD Era in 20th-Century history, I feel qualified to say, “Grow a pair, Senior Israeli Dudes.” Brain drain. Sheesh.
It adds up to a devastating case for mens rea regarding a prospective war crime. You don’t need to “fisk” Goldberg’s article with links to other sources making the above points. They are all in Goldberg’s article. And probably only a reporter as friendly to the aims of the Israeli government could get its officials to speak so freely for an American audience. You can feel free to speculatively denigrate Goldberg’s motives for allowing so much frankness to seep through, but another thing we had in the MAD Era was the New Criticism. It’s the work that matters, not the author.
The article does not contain every possible and likely criticism of Israeli policy or the case for aggressive war against Iran*. (e.g. it’s by no means just Netanyahu’s Dad that opposes a two-state solution; Iran “needs” to be bombed because it’s Israel’s last remotely material regional rival; what would it really mean or matter that “the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran, out of self-protection?” If an Iranian nuke really threatens “a second holocaust” then is concentrating half the world’s Jewish population in a really sandy New Jersey an effective survival strategy for the Jewish people? etc.) But even though the article doesn’t say everything, it still says what it says.
* This footnote is for our American readers: Bombing a country is going to war with that country – not, as American discourse frequently has it, some kind of alternative to war. Nor is a Basset Hound an alternative to a dog. A Basset might be an alternative to a Newfie, as bombing is an alternative to invading with ground troops, scattering the survivors and annexing the conquered lands. But a bombing campaign is a war as a Basset Hound is a subtype of canis lupus familiaris.
Comment by hf —
August 25, 2010 @ 1:40 am
Even that’s true only if the Iranians decide not to respond and escalate. There’s all kinds of things they could do that would in turn “require” some ground action. They’ve already said they’ll shut down the Strait of Hormuz, undoing that would most likely require occupying at least the adjoining coast.
Once the bombing starts there’s no telling where it’s going to end.
Comment by abb1 —
August 25, 2010 @ 2:04 am
Fucking Zionazi scum.
Comment by nadezhda —
August 25, 2010 @ 2:37 am
I haven’t had the stomach to read Goldberg’s whole article, but I’ve followed a bit of the discussions about it and have been astonished by precisely the bits you’ve highlighted. I agree totally with your assessment.
My take-away has been that the article is a devastating exposé of the total lack of true seriousness (moral, political or geopolitical) on the part of the Israelis and of the complete absence of any justification — even in theory with the most favorable-to-Israel hypotheticals — for an attack by Israel, let alone by the US.
In any patron-client relation, the US risks the tail wagging the dog (see We’re all Georgians now). But Goldberg has documented a case of a rabid tail chasing the dog in frantic circles on the edge of a cliff. What we’re seeing is Israel in full psychotic episode — a complete collapse of identity and confidence in the possibility of an old-fashioned Zionist future that would erradicate the nightmares of their history. And since they can’t count on Jehovah showing up the way he used to occasionally, (to seriously mix metaphors) they think it will somehow all be better if they can trick Daddy into beating up the guy over on the next street who glowers when they get on the school bus each morning even though that would cause a neighborhood riot in which everybody will have to take sides and join the fracas. Everybody is going to get very badly hurt, after which anybody who can leave the neighborhood is going to head for the exits to escape the inevitable perpetual blood feud.
Insanity. What I find so distressing is that people I usually respect have treated what Goldberg wrote as something to take seriously on the merits or demerits of “stopping Iran from getting the bomb”. They don’t start by questioning the whole basic premise. Instead, they ignore the hits-you-square-in-the-eyes flaming, certifiable madness that Goldberg has shown the world.
What Goldberg’s piece suggest is that the top international priority of the White House must be to keep Netanyahu’s government from producing such a level of fear-driven internal dynamics that they richochet into and dominate US domestic politics which an out-of-power group of ignorant unprincipled hooligans will exploit. And as the past few weeks of mosque hysteria has demonstrated, exploit it they will, damn the consequences.
The Israelis appear to be doing their utmost to push themselves, the US, and the entire region (along with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) off the cliff. And it’s free-fall after that. There’s no way of knowing where the bottom is, but it’s going to be a very long way down. Which I assume the people closest to Obama recognize.
At least I’m praying that “all options on the table” is the empty equivalent of feeding the Israelis comfort-food. Since I assume no one in the Obama administration actually thinks anything will come from talks between Netanyahu and Abbas, perhaps they’ve decided it’s a way of diverting some of Bibbi’s energy that he’d otherwise be spending on ginning up Iran hysteria in the US and making it easier to squelch any provocations on his part.
The difficulty, of course, is it’s suicidal in US politics or punditry to point out that the Israelis themselves have gone totally suicidally bonkers and seem eager to take the US with them. That may be beyond even the Slate contrarians.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 25, 2010 @ 3:30 am
(My emphasis).
Observe the qualifiers! Nukes mean that Iran and its proxies can attack Israel and worry less about the response. You’re point boils down to saying Isreallis differ about how strong this effect might be. Note also that firing rockets into Israel is going to war with Israel, not a scare-quoted “provocation”
Ok, you say that not only it no loss for the US to allow an openly hostile power to enhance its strategic position; its also not a loss if the US consequently loses it’s allies. I suppose that makes sense if you are Pat Buchanan, but otherwise?
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 25, 2010 @ 6:41 am
@hf: Agreed, but that way (exhaustively explaining out every implication of a post) lies Digby. I work too many hours.
@abb1: Not cool.
@Adrian: 1. Some do. Some are idiots. 2. Agreed. Firing rockets into Israel constitutes “going to war with Israel.” 3. So, if you have an answer for the question (”what would it mean”) do please provide it. Give me a material consequence of, say, Abu Dabai “ally[ing] itself with Iran.” I’m using “material” in the accounting sense here, not the Marxist btw.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 25, 2010 @ 7:33 am
@Jim, Re the importance of having diplomatic allies. You are claiming that if various states swtich sides, it won’t matter because those states are small Gulf states. In fact, (as a qualified armchair diplomat) I think an American show of weakness would also change the game in Iraq and Lebanon. Egypt and and Saudi would also shift but much more subtly.
What would all this mean? Well in no particular order:
1. More votes in international fora and public statements from Arab governments will go Iran’s way and not America’s.
2. These countries will block efforts to cut funding to terrorists, at least to Iran backed terrorists. And you can’t tell me that the Gulf states are minnows in Islamic finance.
3. These countries will do less to capture terrorists and disrupt their operations.
4. If Iran wants to threaten the West with oil-price spikes, they will find it much easier.
These are only the concrete things that I can think of. No small part of an alliance is the mutual backscratching, which might happen in a thousand ways too small to get media attention, but which add up.
Comment by Ray —
August 25, 2010 @ 8:42 am
Funnily enough, I predict that if Israel, with US backing, launches an unprovoked attack on Iran this will lead to
1. More votes in international fora and public statement’s going Iran’s way.
2. An increase in the number of people motivated to join terrorist groups, and an increase in Iran’s desire to fund them
3. Surrounding countries will see Israel (and the US) as ‘rogue states’, and will be less willing to implement their policies
4. Iranian reprisals likely – could have negative repercussions on price of oil?
Comment by LarryM —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:03 am
Ray,
Those consequences rather understate the likely case, as even Goldberg in other contexts concedes.
Comment by abb1 —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Not cool? How can you be cool about this shit?
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:12 am
This leaves aside the fact that a bunch of states “switching” to Iran’s orbit is preposterous on numerous levels.
For one, Iran has nothing to offer these states. At present, the US offers copious amounts of money, advanced weaponry, lucrative trade arrangements, wealthy markets and military protection.
Iran, a poor, middling power would offer…none of the above! Just the fact that Iran has a nuke. Maybe. Some day.
Wow. Sweet deal. I can see those states clamoring to Iran as we speak.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:27 am
It’s like reading a John Milius screenplay.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:35 am
@Ray:
Yes, attacking Iran has consequences too which is why Israel & America should avoid doing it. I wanted to remind people that it really is a bad thing if Iran gets nukes.
My assesment of your points is:
1. More votes in international fora and public statement’s going Iran’s way.
Not from Arab governments. Instant condemnation yes, then a return to normal. There is a real cost in worldwide public perception though.
2. An increase in the number of people motivated to join terrorist groups, and an increase in Iran’s desire to fund them
No and no. These things are already at saturation anyway.
3. Surrounding countries will see Israel (and the US) as ‘rogue states’, and will be less willing to implement their policies
No, see point 1.
4. Iranian reprisals likely – could have negative repercussions on price of oil?
Yes. Although this is different (not obviously better or worse) from a situation where Iran permanently finds it easier to attack Israel, or to spike the oil price on their own initiative.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:43 am
@Eric
Good point, although my estimation of Iran is not as low as yours. Goldberg’s point about flipping sides was a quote from a UAE diplomat. It could be an empty threat, also designed to put pressure on the US.
Still, it means that at least on of America’s Arab allies really, really, want strong action against Iran’s nukes. If Iran does get nukes, and if (as is almost inevitable) this makes America weak and irresolute, their diplomatic position will shift.
How much will they shift? I don’t know. I expect Lebanon will shift quite a lot, no one can predict Iraq.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:44 am
But Adrian, regardless of Ray’s arguments, the point is that the underlying suggestion that Arab Gulf States would defect from the US to Iran for…no apparent reason is ludicrous on its face.
The US offers many goodies. That’s why those countries ally with us. Iran offers none. Countries don’t switch for such reasons.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 25, 2010 @ 9:53 am
See, this is why I didn’t get as upset by the article as others have. Maybe I’m just accepting too many of the other side’s terms, but I saw it as a window into how messed up a lot of thinking is. A reasonable person who reads the admission that Iran won’t get much leverage from the nuke will come away thinking “WTF?”
Pingback by What’s the Opposite of a Slam Dunk? « American Footprints —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:03 am
[...] While Wright’s piece is more methodical and thorough, Henley offers a concise summary: [...]
Comment by Ray —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:05 am
I’d like to congratulate Adrian on his ability to see trees.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:12 am
Good point, although my estimation of Iran is not as low as yours.
How so? Are you suggesting that Iran is an economic powerhouse? Military?
Still, it means that at least on of America’s Arab allies really, really, want strong action against Iran’s nukes.
Maybe. And regardless, so what?
If Iran does get nukes, and if (as is almost inevitable) this makes America weak and irresolute, their diplomatic position will shift.
You say inevitable? How exactly will this “make America weak and irresolute”? Why? That’s a huge, enormous, gigantic leap.
How much will they shift? I don’t know. I expect Lebanon will shift quite a lot, no one can predict Iraq.
How and why? Are you saying that states will forego all of the tangible benefits of being in the US orbit in order to gravitate to Iran for…what is the payoff?
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Math is interesting. We have signs for equals, greater-than and less-than, and even much-greater-than and much-less-than. Of the five possibilities, which would appropriately characterize the ratio of American nuclear weapons to Iranian ones, assuming that Iran actually produces some number of nuclear weapons:
American Nukes [place sign here] Iranian Nukes
Show your work.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:18 am
As to our “interests” in the Middle East, let’s be honest: What practical effect will the Middle East have on the daily lives of most Americans other than oil sales?
This is why I continue to offer these terms for oil: Cash on delivery. We don’t care what sort of regime happens to control which field, nor do we care who happens to control the Straits of Hormuz. Whoever happens to control the oil is invited to send it over in tanker ships, at which point we will pay cash for it, at market rates.
As to Israel and Palestine, I fail to see why America should give a shit about that conflict. Yes, yes, I realize that that conflict is a driver of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, but that’s only because we give a shit about it and take sides. If we announced a policy of “Whatever, dudes” and stopped involving ourselves, we’d be fine.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:19 am
BTW, given how much oil we burn when we send planes and men with guns to blow shit up and shoot at people in the Middle East, a simple “cash on delivery” policy would probably reduce our carbon footprint quite a bit.
Comment by Monte Davis —
August 25, 2010 @ 10:39 am
Let slip the dogs of war, and nobody can even hear poor Cesar Millan any more. For a splendid example of ignoring that, see Robert D. Kaplan’s fever dream here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/10/when-north-korea-falls/5228/
Not that he’s “right” or “wrong” in his predictions, but that he pursues them into a zone where the only rules are those of 52 pickup.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:09 am
The Arab states are not going to tip towards or against Iran solely on the basis of a bidding war with the U.S. There is the historical Arab fear of and antipathy toward “The Persian” to be taken into account, also. Not all Muslims are the same, you know.
Everyone who wishes to avoid a strike on Iran, whatever their opinion of Israel, ought to wish speedy success to Israel’s Arrow-2 anti-ballistic missile upgrade program. This is a descendant of the U.S.’s Arrow anti-aircraft missile, which was such a flop in the ABM role in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Of course, even if it were to successfully stop an Iranian nuclear missile aimed at Tel Aviv, that would probably still mean war. So…. :\
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:22 am
The Arab states are not going to tip towards or against Iran solely on the basis of a bidding war with the U.S. There is the historical Arab fear of and antipathy toward “The Persian” to be taken into account, also. Not all Muslims are the same, you know.
Just to build on this, Adrian cites the UAE ambassador that is so opposed to Iran getting nukes due to historical animosity between many predominately SUNNI and ARAB Gulf states and predominately SHIITE and PERSIAN Iran as evidence that, if the US doesn’t succeed, then many such historical adversaries will actually…join up with Iran?
Overcoming that historicaly animosity by the strength of…not clear exactly.
Comment by Nell —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:36 am
nadezhda: …people I usually respect have treated what Goldberg wrote as something to take seriously on the merits or demerits of “stopping Iran from getting the bomb”. They don’t start by questioning the whole basic premise.
That’s the propaganda function of this article, to establish the whole basic premise. In this Goldberg is assisted massively by the current administration, the permanent government in the Pentagon, and all who aspire to Seriousness: they also take the premise as a giventhat Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is on its way.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:41 am
Have you ever seen a squantz’s tears?
Well look at mine
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:54 am
That’s the propaganda function of this article, to establish the whole basic premise. In this Goldberg is assisted massively by the current administration, the permanent government in the Pentagon, and all who aspire to Seriousness: they also take the premise as a given that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is on its way.
But that has already been established, no? I mean, no one discusses the alternative – that Iran might not want an actual bomb (or be working toward one, regardless). Seems like a whole lot of work to establish a given
Comment by LarryM —
August 25, 2010 @ 11:59 am
“That’s the propaganda function of this article, to establish the whole basic premise.”
See, the problem with that is that the premise sadly HAS ALREADY BEEN established. No one is “questioning the whole basic premise.” But it’s not like this article is what’s stopping that from happening. The problem is much deeper – at some point the threshold question of whether the use of aggressive force by the United States is morally justified has been taken taken off the table as a topic for “serious” conversation. We have an instrumental debate; if the “serious” people think that the proposed aggression serves our interests, then by definition it is deemed morally justified.
Now, that’s a frightening state of affairs, and frankly why I no longer consider myself a patriot of ANY stripe. We’re the bad guys, no question at all. But I don’t see the Goldberg article making that state of affairs WORSE. I also don’t see it making it better, of course, but I’m not sure what would.
In that world, though, there IS still an instumental debate going on. And while I’m not going to invest much energy cheering on the saner war criminals, the fact is that the consequences of a an attack on Iran would be catestrophic for everyone, ESPECIALLY the Iranian people, and thus one would hope that sanity will prevail. And a case could be made – I think that Jim makes it – that by laying bare certain truths, the Goldverg article makes an attack (marginally) less likely. Certainly this is one case where the instrumental case against war is SO strong that sanity might indeed prevail. And while Goldberg sees it as a close case (telling in itself given his love of war), his REPORTING underlines just how insane theenterprise would be.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
First an apology. I said:
If Iran does get nukes, and if (as is almost inevitable) this makes America weak and irresolute, their diplomatic position will shift.
I meant, “this makes America seem weak and irresolute”. Mea culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa because, thanks to my error, Eric was quite entitled to respond:
You say inevitable? How exactly will this “make America weak and irresolute”? Why? That’s a huge, enormous, gigantic leap.
However, the seeming is important. Diplomacy is about balancing of interests, and long been in the interest of these Sunni, Arab, Persian disliking states have an outside protector. They will constantly be assessing whether they really have such a protector.
So will the Arab shift their stance if Iran goes nuclear? You bet. Will that mean “allying with Iran”? Who knows, the UAE Ambassador says so, but surely his government has not yet made up it’s mind.
As for the power of The Persian:
How so? Are you suggesting that Iran is an economic powerhouse? Military?
Milatarily, Iran is powerful, not as powerful as America, but that only matters if … well you know.
Comment by LarryM —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
” I mean, no one discusses the alternative – that Iran might not want an actual bomb (or be working toward one, regardless). Seems like a whole lot of work to establish a given.”
Um, how about the alternative that if Iran is developing a bomb THAT IS THEIR SOVERIEGN RIGHT and any effort to use military force to stop it WOULD BE A WAR CRIME PUNISHABLE BY THE ULTIMATE PENALTY. As much as Nuremberg was victor’s justice of a sort, at least it established the salutory premise that aggressive warfare is punushable by being hanged by the neck until dead.
Honestly, if I was ruling Iran, or frankly ANY nation not either allied to the U.S. or part of its defacto empire, OF COURSE I would make every effort to develop the bomb, as a simple matter of self defense.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
LarryM, the Nuremberg judges were not Serious People.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
So will the Arab shift their stance if Iran goes nuclear? You bet.
You bet? I would actually, take that bet. Honestly, no perceivable shift. These states do not like Iran, and have an outside protector. Even if the US can’t keep Iran from getting a bomb, the US is still the best outside protector available. Iran, their adversary, at no time becomes more attractive.
Milatarily, Iran is powerful, not as powerful as America, but that only matters if … well you know
Iran isn’t even as powerful as France. Point being: Iran isn’t powerful enough for either: conquest, or extension of a protection umbrella to other Gulf States.
Thus, they are not powerful enough to matter in these terms. Thus, they are not powerful enough to offer Gulf States anything in return for “shifting” toward Iran.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
Larry: I don’t disagree with you. In fact, I agree in all caps even!
Comment by CharleyCarp —
August 25, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
I hate to sound like I’m channeling an episode of Star Trek TNG, but the US would only look weak or irresolute in the face of an Iranian nuke if it’s overreacted before or after development of the nuke. If the nuke is inevitable, we should be acting as if it is not a gamechangingly big deal. As indeed it is not.
And ok, all the people saying OMG North Korea: what harm has the NK nuke done so far? We didn’t get to invade them?
Comment by Patrick D —
August 25, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
Thoreau: There you go… inflating American interests in the Middle East again.
Not much crude flows from the Persian Gulf to the U.S. Our interest is mostly on the global “fungible” level. There are, however, plenty of countries that are richer, larger, more industrialized, and/or more powerful than Iran (and a stronger balance sheet than the U.S.) who do depend on that flow and would be upset if Iran messed with it. India, China, South Korea and Japan spring to mind.
Adrian: Looking “weak and irresolute” is a hazard to a country involving itself at levels that far exceed its actual interest.
The Middle East is a sucker’s game. The American messianic/global cop mentality makes us an easy mark. As things stand, we won’t be leaving the table until we’re completely fleeced.
Comment by stras —
August 26, 2010 @ 12:37 am
If the nuke is inevitable, we should be acting…
What do you mean “we,” Kemosabe? Unless your name starts with “B” and rhymes with “Shmarack Shmobama,” there’s no “we” in this story. The United States and its government is a “they.”
Comment by stras —
August 26, 2010 @ 12:49 am
As for Iran, their neighbors to the east and the west are both under occupation by a lunatic nuclear power whose transparently sociopathic leaders have shown unrelenting hostility towards their nation for over half a century. They’d be crazy not to be building a nuke, and for their sake I hope they get one soon.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 26, 2010 @ 2:22 am
stras, you are Not Serious.
Comment by Adrian Ratnapala —
August 26, 2010 @ 3:19 am
@Eric
You bet? I would actually, take that bet. Honestly, no perceivable shift. These states do not like Iran, and have an outside protector.
I think we should take a bet on that one. 50-100 USD or so. Is there a website where we can do such things?
Judged on events happening in the two years after Iran is shown to have nukes (if that ever happens). It’ll be devilish hard to come up with rules about what a “perceivable shift”, since either side can muddy the muddy the waters, but we should think about it.
Comment by ajay —
August 26, 2010 @ 4:14 am
So, when Israel got nuclear weapons, did a whole lot of Arab states ally with them? Just asking.
35: Jesus, Patrick, if the Straits close then the price of oil goes up worldwide and everyone who imports oil suffers, regardless of where their specific oil actually comes from.
What would all this mean? …These countries will block efforts to cut funding to terrorists, at least to Iran backed terrorists. And you can’t tell me that the Gulf states are minnows in Islamic finance.
I think this means that the UAE and Saudi Arabia might start to fund, supply and support the Taliban even more than they are already.
Not that that’s going to happen anyway. Seriously, the UAE is a Sunni autocracy with a large, restive and downtrodden Shia population. Of course that makes them natural allies of Iran.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 26, 2010 @ 8:33 am
Judged on events happening in the two years after Iran is shown to have nukes (if that ever happens). It’ll be devilish hard to come up with rules about what a “perceivable shift”, since either side can muddy the muddy the waters, but we should think about it.
See, if it’s devlisihly hard to come up with rules about what a perceivable shift entails, then it is likely that any shift at all won’t be that perceivable.
Meaning, if the shift is clear, there will be no argument. If the shift is not clear, and we can argue about it, then it really wasn’t much of a shift anyway.
Regardless,
I hereby pledge to donate $100 to your charity of choice should the following occur:
1. Iran acquire a nuke.
2. There is a perceivable shift of Gulf nations moving into Iran’s orbit, in opposition to the US, within the two year period following #1.
I don’t even need you to reciprocate. You have my word.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 26, 2010 @ 8:36 am
Adding, Adrian, that you still haven’t actually provided a reason why the states would shift.
That the US looks weak does not make Iran look attractive. After all, again, these states supposedly want us to bomb Iran because they harbor animosity toward Iran, yet you argue that if Iran gets the bomb, they will overcome that animosity and move into Iran’s orbit because [INSERT HERE].
What is the [INSERT HERE]?
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 26, 2010 @ 8:37 am
And lastly, how many states moved into North Korea’s orbit after it went nuclear?
Pakistan’s?
Israel’s?
And explain in each instance how it was the attainment of nuclear weapons that provided the impetus.
Comment by abb1 —
August 26, 2010 @ 11:25 am
Yes!!! I claim copyright.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 26, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Since becoming a nuclear power in the Middle East inevitably causes your neighbors to become your allies (just look at what it’s done for Israel), I propose that after the Iranians get a nuke and become a respected leader among all of the Gulf states, the Kurds and Armenians should also get a nuke and finally resolve all disagreements with their neighbors.
I’m sure this will work really well.
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 26, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Ah, maybe giving the Palestinians a nuke will solve that whole peace process thingy.
Comment by Patrick D —
August 26, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
40: ajay. Yes. I’m aware. My issue is the long standing foreign policy that makes the U.S. the primary agent ensuring the Straits of Hormuz stays open.
Comment by Patrick D —
August 26, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
Or to put it another way, where are all the ships, planes, troops, etc. belonging to everyone else who imports oil? The U.S. is committed way out of proportion to its interest. As I said, a suckers’ game.
Comment by abb1 —
August 27, 2010 @ 1:13 am
The best way to deal with predatory-psychotic behavior in a society is to introduce the rule of law.
Absent that – and by now it’s pretty clear that the UN is as much a failure as the League of Nations before it – yes, absent that, the next best solution would be to make the great equalizer available to everybody. Sad but true.
Comment by Bill J —
August 27, 2010 @ 4:02 am
I think the more appropriate question
should be: what country attacked North Korea after it developed nukes? Answer, no one.Comment by Bill J —
August 27, 2010 @ 4:06 am
Pardon the strikes through my comment but such are the risks of walking and typing on a pda.
Comment by LarryM —
August 27, 2010 @ 7:30 am
abb1, I can fully endorse two concepts – that agressive warfare to stop another nation from developing the bomb is never justified, and that the rational decision for any nation not under the protection of the U.S. or another nuclear power is to develop the bomb themselves.
It doesn’t follow that nuclear proliferation is a good thing for the current non-nuclear powers AS A WHOLE. The world you envision would likely have fewer conventional wars – and would thankfully hamstring the hegemonist policies of the most powerful rogue state inworld history (the U.s., of course) – at a cost of a greatly increased risk of nuclear war. That’s a poor bargain in my book.
There may be no way to stop it – the “rule of law” appraoch is a failure, and the unilateral approach is at the same time immoral and ultimately ineffective – but that doesn’t make proliferation a GOOD thing.
Comment by LarryM —
August 27, 2010 @ 7:36 am
And this highlights the underlying point – even when sovereign states make decisions which, from the point of view of the international community, are harmful, that’s their right, as long as they refrain from starting a war. Aggressive warfare is always wrong. Defense against aggressive warfare, even collective defense, is not wrong. But premptive or preventive war is agpressive warfare, which is plain and simple mass murder.
Comment by Gary Farber —
August 28, 2010 @ 2:19 am
The reason losing the Vietnam War was supposed to be a Bad Thing was because it would make the U.S. look irresolute and weak.
We seem to have survived.
Comment by Lemuel Pitkin —
August 28, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
Can anyone seriously doubt that the greatest military threat to Americans and Israelis, are our own respective governments? We’re far more likely to be killed in wars our own governments start than in wars someone else starts with us — and that’s not even considering collateral effects.
Seems to me logically undeniable that ordinary Americans and Israelis would be better off if there were more external constraint on our governments’ ability to use force. As provided, for instance, by an Iranian nuke. No?
Comment by CharleyCarp —
August 28, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
The United States and its government is a “they.”
Sadly, no. This IS who “we” are.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 29, 2010 @ 8:42 am
Seems to me logically undeniable that ordinary Americans and Israelis would be better off if there were more external constraint on our governments’ ability to use force. As provided, for instance, by an Iranian nuke. No?
Yes.
Comment by John Spragge —
August 30, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
I see a fair bit of projection in the fear expressed by various Israeli officials that an Iranian nuclear weapon will create a brain drain from Israel. In reality, Israel would face an existential choice even if Iran brought back the Shah: between the values represented by the high-tech cluster in Tel Aviv, and the values of the West Bank “hilltop outposts”.
Virtually all commercially successful and technologically innovative societies appear share certain values, above all, the concept of process, the idea that events do not happen by magic, and that merit in religion as well as secular life requires both sustained effort and ongoing ethical conduct. Jewish culture as a whole embodies those values, and I would expect mainstream Israeli culture to do so as well. But the ill-educated and violent minority of extreme settlers who keep the West Bank settlement enterprise going clearly have magical beliefs. Trying to “redeem” the land of Israel by trying to drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, alienating all your neighbours and a large chunk of world opinion: this makes about as much sense as buying a McMansion with a ninja mortgage and playing the lottery. Only people with magical beliefs would do this.
And if Israeli policy continues to protect and support the settlers even as they flout Israeli law, then it won’t take an Iranian bomb to thwart the hopes of the Tel Aviv tech cluster. Sooner or later, the entrepreneurs of Tel Aviv, faced with the prospect of going (or sending their children) to risk their lives and blight their souls oppressing the Palestinians on behalf of places like Havaat Maon, and the 128 loop, or Silicon Valley, or Kitchener-Waterloo, or Bangalore, or San Jose will start to look very attractive.
Israeli politicians shouldn’t blame the Iranians or the bomb if that happens.