Iranian nukes: are we scared yet?

41 thoughts on “Iranian nukes: are we scared yet?”

1. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. For all the noise about Israel having nukes since the late fifties, have they ever walked to the brink, made any threats, caused any accidents, or in any way endangered others with nukes? That is a record of five decades!
   India and Pakistan raised their rethoric and made dire threats as soon as they assembled their first nuke. In a few short years they were at the gates of nuclear war. Pakistan exported their nukes to the worst possible clients. And we all know that was no rogue initiative.
   North Korea immediately used their nukes to blackmail the West apparently for just material support to feed their people.
   France has been frying millions of fish with their stupid underwater nuclear tests and giving the finger to environmentalists and Polynesians.
   You want Iran to have nukes?
   Just listen to the Iranian rethoric of what they think should be done with Israel. Why not take them at their word?
   Israel is a sliver of land with no strategic depth and sworn enemies awaiting their chance. Iran has strategic depth and nobody bent on conquering nor destroying it. It is childish and nonsensical to advocate for symmetrical solutions when the problem itself is not symmetrical.
   And by the way, Iranian nukes are not just an Israeli worry, the Europeans seem to be losing sleep over that as well. The only person that can sleep just fine with a nuclear Iran is Helena. She may be smarter than most, but then again it may be just a dose of Prozac.
   David
   PS: Masada complex? Look around, it is moslems immolating themselves day in and day out. This week it was two Russian planes, two Beer-Sheba busses, and the promised Chechen school immolation about to happen.

2. “Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.”
   Good point, David.
   Now, please list the states in this world that have actually used nuclear weapons.

3. David wrote:
   “For all the noise about Israel having nukes since the late fifties, have they ever walked to the brink, made any threats, caused any accidents, or in any way endangered others with nukes?”
   Yes, they have. In 1972, when the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal and blasted the Bar-Lev defense line away, the Israeli’s were on the brink of using their nukes. Without making threats first, which makes them the most irreponsible owners of nukes one can think of.

4. And is no one bringing up the obvious and much belabored point that the US invasion of Iraq probably would not have happened if Iraq actually had a nuke program? Having such a program sure is working for the North Koreans.
   And, Heleana – so you don’t think the IEAE report is suggestive? You almost make it sound like the IEAE is a branch of the pro-Israeli lobby…
   David – I don’t know what “strategic depth” is supposed to mean. Please explain. Do you mean that Iran has a huge geographic area, is mountainous, and would be insane to invade with ground troops? And so you think Israeli nukes are necessary?
   I, for one, think that if Iran builds nukes, it might actually stabilize the region, since they really would act as a deterrent, and you might get fewer of these pre-emptive wars. (Notice I said “might.”)

5. (Actually, Menno, that wd be 1973?)
   David– I was talking about affiliation with ideas of SELF-immolation, and maybe I left out a couple of steps of my reasoning there… In a situation of mutual nuclear deterrence, a power that considers using its nukes is (the theory goes) deterred from doing so by the thought that if it does, then the other power will respond against it in kind. So under those circs, to consider using one’s nukes is to knowingly risk SELF-immolation.
   As for affiliation with ideas–and practices–of immolating or othewise killing others, nearly all governments and by definition all terrorist groups seem quite eagerly and habitually to engage in that. The most recent spate of terrorist operations in Russia, Israel, and Iraq is, as you note, quite shocking. But scores of Chechens, Palestinians, and atni-occupation Iraqis continue to get killed by well-armed governments as well; and each one of the lives snuffed out is a tragedy.
   Vivion–I possibly implied that the IAEA was on some kind of a Feith-ist bandwagon, with my ref to “yellowcake”. I didn’t mean to imply that. As I understand it, the IAEA report this time still expresses some worries, but fewer than last time. (Which has the Bushies all riled up. They wanted a smoking gun.)
   All of you: I’m really sorry that when I ‘published’ this post last night I’d left in a nasty HTML error (failing to close an ‘underline’). I have now, as you can see, corrected that.

6. Oh, and David: I said “asymmetrical”, not “symmetrical”. As in, Israel has >200 warheads and–in a worst-case realization of currently expressed western fears– Iran might get “5”. I think “a-symmetrical” describes that, don’t you?

7. I am not afraid of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The US is the only country which has ever had the gall to employ these weapons. And despite what our crazy president says and what the people who place Israeli security before US security (and Israel is not an American state though I will bet you a thousand bucks that many Israelis vote in Israel’s and US elections), Israel and its constant repression, takeover of lands and Nazi-esque behavior is the root of the problem in the middle east, not Iran.
   What are you going to say about that, David? If your big concern is Israel, then please denounce your US citizenship and get over there now.

8. I, for one, really do think that the Iranians are close to getting nuclear weapons. But, then again, I haven’t been around as long nor do I know as much, so my opinion there doesn’t count for much. But, I also do not live in constant fear of the possibility of Iran attaining nuclear capabilities. I think that part of all the hype might be build-up to justification for attacking Iran, but I think that in actuallity, Syria is moving ahead of Iran on the list of “who’s next” in the Middle East.

9. israel and america deserve to suffer the same pains that they inflict. we both have the power to enforce our racism and greed and to help each other do the same. Terrorism allows others to hit back.
   if i were Iran, i would get the bomb damned quick and before the clueless and callous american electorate reelects Bush.

10. Helena, I agree with you about Iran’s nuclear program, although not about Israel’s. I’d argue that Israel’s decision not to use them when faced with a surprise attack by two conventional armies – a test to which no other nuclear power has been put – indicates that it’s a responsible actor. (Israel’s 1973 nuclear alert was basically an exercise in high-stakes diplomacy and is no more than India and Pakistan – or for that matter the US and Russia in ’62 – have done on several occasions.) At the same time, the Iranian government – while likewise prone to saber-rattling – has actually pursued a relatively low-key foreign policy and has been careful not to do anything that would invite major retaliation. The theocrats have a pretty good survival instinct, and I can’t quite see them initiating a nuclear war, especially against a country like Israel with effective second-strike capability.
    What I am potentially concerned about is who might buy Iranian nukes. Whatever may be said about the occasional bellicose rhetoric of Israel or India, neither is a serious risk to sell nuclear technology to non-state actors. Pakistan, Russia and Iran, on the other hand, may not keep as tight a leash on their nuclear programs – the former two because of corruption, and the latter out of ideology. Given that Pakistan and Russia already pose a risk of nuclear leakage, though, I don’t think an Iranian program would increase that risk more than incrementally. It certainly wouldn’t be worth going to war over.

11. The whole idea of the NPT was to PREVENT the spread of nukes. The idea was that if more countries had them the chance of them being used in localized, ‘silly’ confrontations would increase. So enlightened minds (It is AMAZING to an old man like me that those were actually MORE rational times. Who could have known?) made a treaty that included an IMPLIED contract. That contract was that if you signed, and were peaceful, you would be protected from invasion. The protectors? The major powers that already had nukes. If you had a contract preventing invasion, you would not need nukes to protect yourself.
    But once Iraq was invaded this bargain broke down. In many ways the NPT no longer exists in any realistic way. There is no assurance of NOT being invaded, short of being an American stooge. This is particularly true for Islamic nations who are at odds with Isreal. And if you are at odds with both Isreal AND Saudi Arabia the worries become acute.
    Add to that public discussions of the ‘axis of evil’, the ‘Bush Doctrine’ of pre-emptive attacks (even when a threat is NOT emminent), it is no surprise that countries are seeking nukes. In order to prevent their spread you have to give reasons NOT to have them.
    The truth is there are no longer any reasons NOT to have nukes left. There are no protectors, there is no contract.

12. Wow, I am flattered by getting more interlocutors on this thread than even Helena herself. I’ll try to respond to you all, albeit briefly, to avoid boring all to death. In order of replies:
    1) Shirin, only the US has ever used nuclear weapons. Now please work on somehow connecting that fact to my unease with Iranian nukes. Take your time.
    2) Menno Hert, you got your years wrong. You leap to a wild speculation that the most dangerous actors are those than never threaten, have never used, but can somehow decide to use nukes. Are they still dangerous if they are not attacked? Can they spontaneously lose it and smoke a neighbor just like that?
    3) Vivion, yes by strategic depth I mean the geographic depth that gives a country the chance to regroup and fend off a massive conventional attack. Nobody can take over Iran in 5 days, let alone that to my knowledge nobody wants to.
    The North Korean case seems unrelated. North Korea has no oil, and is so poor it canot feed itself or keep their lights on. Do you think the US has any designs on them?
    4) Helena, we misunderstood each other. By symmetry I meant the reaction you hear often of: “if one country has it, why can’t all countries have it?”
    5) Meggie, I do not know where to start. There are many US citizens that have dual citizenships. That is, people from countries that are not chauvinistically anal, and understand that families and life journeys tend to cross national boundaries. Some of these countries, like Mexico, have sizable populations capable of deciding the outcome, not Israel. Voting your citizenship is not only legal, it is also evidence that you care about the fate of your respective nations. In the case of Israel, there seems to be a common democratic, enterpreneurial fabric, and lately a common fate in facing the same enemies, so individuals have no problem at all aligning their wishes. Arab citizens face a harder situation now that we are at war with a fraction of the Arab world, as evidenced by the two Arabs (US citizens, one American born) caught last week in New York plotting an attack on New York/New Jersey.
    I am concerned about many things Meggie, and I reflect them in my giving, in my writing, and in my voting. For some strange reason my position prompts you to ask me to denounce [SIC] my citizenship and leave the country. Anything else you’d like me to do?
    6) Jeremy is the living example of why I am uncomfortable with Iranian nukes. I’d take our clueless electorate instead of the Iranian Mullas any day.
    Cheers,
    David

13. David,
    Thanks for your response. Regarding N. Korea – no, of course we don’t have any designs upon them (they don’t have oil fields). Nor do we have an effective foreign policy towards them. Nor have we, for the last 4 years – so, I guess you might have a point if you chalked up the N. Korean ability to manipulate the (non-) dialog over there to the incompetence of the current administration, rather than to their posession of nukes.
    On the other hand, from a rhetorical POV, the right would have us believe that the Axis of Evil is a moral or theological problem, not one of natural resources or geopolitical strategy. If we are to believe that, then indeed having nukes HAS worked for the N. Koreans.

14. All – of course, the real issue is not whether the general audience of this blog is scared, now, is it? Clearly, the U.S. population has demonstrated a marked tendency toward paranoia over the last few years.
    What I am curious about – Helena, maybe you can answer this – is to what degree we really need to be scared that we WILL try to invade Iran after the Iraq fiasco. I get the feeling that there are still neo-cons out there chomping at the bit, despite the sheer madness the idea represents.

15. Hi, Vivion–
    I agree it’s probable that few JWN readers need convincing that Iran is NOT a clear and present danger. Certainly–as Jonathan pointed out–not worth going to war over, which was the main sub-theme of the post, and I’m glad you spelled that out, Jonathan.
    But we all probably need to be more self-confident and forthright about getting our views on this matter (and many others) really out there. Otherwise the fear-mongers just get to monopolize all the public discursive space.
    I suppose I should walk the walk and write my next CSM column about this… Except I already have something else in mind. Let’s see…

16. The more countries that acquire nuclear weapons, the greater the chance one or more will be used at some point.
    Neither Iran nor Israel is a particularly rational or stable country. Both are led by leaders with extreme religious/nationalist ideologies.
    If a democratic country like the U.S. permitted itself to use nuclear weapons while under duress, it is unrealistic to expect that other countries would behave better.
    By failing to press Israel to abandon its nuclear program, the U.S. lost credibility in its attempts to press other countries to abdandon theirs.
    The U.S.’s only realistic options now are to turn a blind eye to Iran’s program or to use force to disrupt it. The latter option will most likely create more problems than it solves.

17. Are these threats?
    ISRAELI NUCLEAR THREATS AND BLACK MAIL

18. David,
    Of course you would choose the will of our “clueless electorate” because it votes for perceived security of America at all costs. What would the Iraqis choose after the “clueless electorate” was misled by the neocons about WMDs? What would Central America choose after we screwed with each of their governments and then proceeded to wage war on them through the 80’s ostensibly because of Soviet involvement, lies that the “clueless electorate believed. What about toppling Mossadegh in Iran to install the Shah? It’s obvious what the Iranian populace feels about the american “clueless electorate” regardless of how they may feel about the Mullahs. How about the Japanese after WE dropped the atomic bombs to send a message to Russia? But of course the “clueless electorate” thinks we did it to save American lives. Or our deceitful and remarkably one-sided support for Israel. I’m pretty sure that regardless of how the americans feel about it, it is not making us safer.
    I could go on, but the point is that what is perceived as good for american security is not necessarily good for the world and in my opinion not truly good for our security.

19. Patrick,
    Claiming that Israel is unstable, irrational, and led by religious nationalist leaders is a confused statement. Let’s take them one by one:
    Unstable – It has been a democracy since its inception, no coups, no revolutions, no debt default, zippo. People that make a living in measuring stability and risk have spoken. It is probably the second country of venture capital investment outside the US. The only risk factor is external, a sea of Arabs around it that deviate the attention of their own people by focusing on an external enemy.
    Irrational – I think of people as rational, not countries, I guess one could interpret irrational countries as those acting outside their self interest. Is that what you meant?
    Religious/Nationalist – The religious part is patently false. There is a religious swing minority, but most of the parliament seats, and EVERY prime minister and ruling party in Israel’s history have been secular.
    Now, let’s talk about my other prediction, that of the imminent self-immolation of the Chechens. It did happen, the witness accounts of the behavior of these terrorists are mind boggling, and indeed some of them blew themselves up to kill some school children, there are at least 200 dead, half of the terrorists were Arabs, and of course all of them moslems. I know you all pure souls will be quick to condemn this with the usual PC disclaimers, you can go through the motions, but what I’d like to see is the usual Israel and US bashers sweating bullets to connect the Checen cause somehow to Israel and the United States.
    I am listening, let me have it. How have Israel and the United States contributed to cause this injustice?

20. David, my remark was connected to your statement that “Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior“.
    Taking your statement as true, based on past behaviour the country most likely to use nuclear weapons is the one that has used them before. The only country that has exhibited that behaviour ever is the United States.
    Also taking your statement as true, based on past behaviour the country most likely to attack another country with massive deadly and destructive force without first being attacked or even threatened is – the United States.
    Continuing to take your statement at face value, based on past behaviour another country that is most likely to attack another country with massive deadly and destructive force without being attacked or even threatened is – Israel.
    AND based on past behaviour Iran is one of the countries least likely to attack another country at all without being attacked first.

21. David,
    There is the matter of Israel’s colonial settler project. This alone meets all the criteria for unstable, irrational and religious/nationalist.

22. Shirin,
    You are right about the US conclusion. I don’t see how you extrapolate to Israel.
    Patrick,
    Then Israel is in good company, with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil, and tens of other democracies with colonial pasts. The only stability you find in the Arab world, absent in Israel, is having the same person in power for decades, like a Yasser Arafat, a Saddam Hussein, an Assad in Syria, a Mubarak in Egypt. This “stability” is very useful for any agent of corruption, and if you like it, Patrick, you can have it. I prefer democracy.
    David

23. Israel is not in good company. It has a colonial present, not a colonial past.

24. Israel is in great company. It is going now through processes that other great nations went through 100 years ago. It is quite rational to settle the land you live in, and there is nothing religious about that. Your sympathies Patrick might be elsewhere, but that doesn’t make that behavior irrational.

25. Israel […] has a colonial present, not a colonial past.
    OK, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This discussion has to do with whether Israel and Iran are nuclear threats, not whether they have a General Propensity to Do Bad Things ™. I’m not aware of any sane Israeli, or even any insane one in a position of power, who has even considered using nuclear weapons in response to the insurgency in the occupied (colonized, if you will) territories. Given that the fallout from any such attack would spread into Israel, I don’t expect that anyone ever will consider mounting one. You might as well argue that China is a nuclear threat because it’s settling Tibet, or that France can’t be trusted with nukes because it continues to maintain a settler project in New Caledonia.
    Let’s examine some of the risk factors that have been suggested above, as applied to both Israel and Iran:

    1. Non-defensive wars: The United States and India (at least four each since WW2) win out over Israel (one to three, depending on your definition of “defensive”) and Iran (none).
    2. Number of nuclear alerts: India, Pakistan, Russia and the United States beat out Israel and Iran, although Iran hasn’t yet had the chance to establish a track record.
    3. Political instability: Russia and Pakistan have the highest risk among nuclear powers; Israel is moderate risk at most. Iran is also moderate risk; the current theocracy isn’t stable over the long term, but any government that replaces it is likely to be less dangerous.
    4. Presence of fanatic ideologies in politics and the armed forces: Pakistan in a walk, followed by Iran. India and Israel are moderate risk countries, with the undeniable presence of fanaticism on the far right contained by rule of law and democratic accountability.
    5. Risk to sell nuclear technology to terrorists: Russia and Pakistan are the most dangerous due to the combination of a weak state, a corrupt military and a proven track record of selling weapons. Iran is moderate risk; it’s sold weapons to groups like Hezbollah in the past, but isn’t likely to give them nuclear technology (if only because it would be the natural suspect). Israel is low risk.

    In other words, if I had to worry about any country having nukes, it would be Pakistan, followed by Russia and then India. Only after that would I start sweating about either Israeli or Iranian WMDs.

26. Jonathan– thanks so much for your systematic approach and clear thinking on this. I haven’t had time to digest all the points you make, and may end up disagreeing with some of them. But I think your listing of the five criteria is a really powerful analytical tool…
    I do think that the US’s current and continuing possession of n/weapons has to be ranked right up there as a risk factor to global stability. (Would the Bushies have felt so blithe about defying most of the other UNSC members over Iraq if it had not had nukes? I doubt it.)
    Anyway, let’s all think more about this (especially me). Today I’m supposed to be writing about Iraq, for the CSM. So I’d better get on with it rather than lurking around in my own Comments Boards.

27. I haven’t had time to digest all the points you make, and may end up disagreeing with some of them.
    That’s only natural; the above is just a first attempt at creating an analytical framework, and I can pick a few nits with it myself. For instance, what counts as a “war” for purposes of the first criterion? Should sheer number of wars be determinative of risk without an analysis of the tactics used? Should other factors, such as prior use of non-nuclear WMDs, enter into the risk analysis? I’ll leave those questions for another day.
    You also make an interesting point about secondary effects of weaponization – i.e., that WMD-possessing countries may pose a greater risk of committing non-nuclear aggressive acts because their nukes deter retaliation. If so, though, this is a factor that applies across the board to nuclear-capable nations, all of which have committed aggressive acts since acquiring WMDs. In addition, the nuclear powers’ ability to commit such acts is limited by logistics, domestic political considerations, possibility of economic sanctions etc., so I’m not sure how much of an incremental increase in impunity is provided by nukes. There are certainly enough non-nuclear powers who act aggressively when they believe the military and political balance is in their favor! But these will all be fruitful topics for a future thread.

28. West Bank settlements have a lot to do with possible use of nuclear weapons: They’re the biggest destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
    This is an intangible that doesn’t fit on Jonathan’s list (unless it is fanatic ideologies, in which case Jonathan has scored Israel far too low): The ability to so anger one’s opponents that they lower the bomb-use threshold. Or conversely, that they are provoked into actions that that lower one’s own bomb-use threshold.

29. You left Taiwan out of the list of nuclear powers.

30. Levitra – Buy Levitra

31. Levitra – Buy Levitra

32. drfeeu iqiy.

33. drfeeu iqiy.

34. online poker

    You can also check the pages in the field of texas hold em online poker online poker

35. online poker

    You are invited to check the sites about online poker texas holdem phentermine levitra

36. online poker

    You are invited to check the sites about online poker texas holdem phentermine levitra

37. online poker

    You are invited to check the sites about online poker texas holdem phentermine levitra

38. texas holdem

    texas hold’em texas hold’em online poker texas holdem

39. texas holdem

    online poker texas holdem texas hold’em texas hold’em

40. texas holdem

    In this case [texas hold’em, online texas hold’em, play texas hold’em] texas holdem.Don’t [texas holdem, texas holdem poker, online texas holdem] texas hold’em!That’s [o…

41. slots

    Call [video poker, video poker game] video poker.Three [online poker, poker, play poker] texas hold em.Look [slots, slots online, free slots] .Look [slots, slots online, free slots] September 2018 July 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 April 2017 March 2016 May 2015 September 2014 July 2014 May 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 March 2013 February 2013 December 2012 November 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003

    Categories

    Categories Select Category Archive of Pre-2019 JWN Content  (458)    Activism, etc (vintage)  (43)    Afghanistan (vintage)  (84)    Africa (vintage)  (28)    Africa–Mozambique (vintage)  (10)    Africa–Rwanda (vintage)  (17)    Africa–South Africa (vintage)  (17)    AIPAC (vintage)  (5)    Annapolis and after (vintage)  (17)    Antiwar (vintage)  (121)    Apartheid in Israel (vintage)  (2)    Appearances (vintage)  (31)    Arab Reform (vintage)  (11)    Australia (vintage)  (1)    Blair’s Britain (vintage)  (28)    Britain under Brown (vintage)  (2)    Britain under Cameron (vintage)  (1)    Canada (vintage)  (4)    Central Asia (vintage)  (1)    China (vintage)  (41)    Climate change (vintage)  (13) Culture  (75) Darfur  (18) Death Penalty  (1) Don’s travels  (1) Economic crisis  (42) Egypt  (52)    Egypt 2013  (1) Egypt 2011  (12) Elections/democratization  (35) Europe  (7) Family life  (13) Flotilla raid 2010  (12) Food issues  (1) Forgiving, etc  (1) French  (9) Gaza 2010-11  (24) Gaza 2014  (5) Gaza08-09  (68) Gender  (8) Global affairs  (71) Global balance  (18) Global economics  (16) Guantanamo  (21) Gulf  (14) Haiti  (3) Hamas  (12) Hawkwatch  (77) HC’s travels, general  (37) Hometown Charlottesville  (53) Human Equality  (3) Human rights  (71) Humanitarian-Interventionist Complex  (1) Humor  (1) Incarceration  (6) Indigenous peoples  (5) IPS news analysis on the ME  (1) Iran  (158) Iran 2010  (19) Iran-Iraq  (15) Iraq  (2) Iraq 2003 thru June 2005  (261) Iraq-2005-Q3  (17) Iraq-2005-Q4  (41) Iraq-2006-Q1  (33) Iraq-2006-Q2  (45) Iraq-2006-Q3  (11) Iraq-2006-q4  (41) Iraq-2007-Q1  (54) Iraq-2007-q2  (27) Iraq-2007-q3  (14) Iraq-2007-q4  (3) Iraq-2008-q1  (9) Iraq-2008-q2  (23) Iraq-2008-q3  (29) Iraq-2008-q4  (24) Iraq-2009  (26) Iraq-2010  (13) Iraq-2011  (2) Iraq-2013  (2) Islam  (5) Israel 2003-08  (136) Israel 2010  (56) Israel 2011  (5) Israel 2012  (2) Israel 2014  (5) Israel in the U.S.  (3) Israel-2009  (103) Israeli settlements  (4) Jerusalem  (10) Jordan  (4) JWN updates  (66) Kahanism  (2) Kosovo  (3) Latin America  (3) Lebanon  (126) Liberal hawks  (1) Libya  (11) Linkees  (34) Media  (73) Mexico  (4) Middle East  (47) Middle East Studies  (2) Military occupations  (30) New Zealand  (5) Nonviolence  (6) Nonviolence 2007  (7) NTFU  (1) Nuclear weapons  (44) Obama presidency  (101) Pakistan  (20) Palestine 2003-05  (83) Palestine 2006  (59) Palestine 2007  (37) Palestine 2008  (75) Palestine 2009  (165) Palestine 2010  (17) Palestine 2011  (10) Palestine 2012  (3) Palestine 2013  (2) Palestine 2014  (1) Palestine 2017  (2) Palestine 2018  (1) Palestinian citizens of Israel  (3) Peacebuilding  (24) poetry  (8) Privacy  (1) Punishment theory  (13) Quaker stuff  (39) Refugee affairs  (6) Russia  (19) Saudi  (19) Settler colonialism  (1) Somalia  (5) Strategic studies  (19) Syria  (89)    Syria 2013  (6)    Syria 2014  (1)    Syria 2018  (1) Terrorism  (15) Tibet  (1) TJF  (7) Transitional Justice  (24) Tunisia  (1) Turkey  (35) U.S. civil war  (1) Uncategorized  (106) United Nations  (20) US Congress  (5) US election 2004  (8) US election 2008  (49) US foreign policy  (255) US military  (42) US politics  (115) US-Israeli relations  (4) Violence/nonviolence  (49) War crimes etc  (103) World order  (7) Writing and publishing  (176)