Sy Hersh has a piece in the latest New Yorker, which says that
- The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.
Even more terrifyingly, Hersh writes that
- One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran…
(Hat-tip to Frank al-Irlandi for that link.)
As Hersh writes, the previous context in which US military planners considered the use of bunker-busting TNWs was against the massive underground complex the Soviets were building outside Moscow during the Cold War. He quotes a retired intel official familiar with that earlier project as arguing that non-nuclear weapons could perhaps perform the task– if the US planners have enough reliable info about the target. But in Iran, they don’t. Hersh continues:
- The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
Hersh indicates that there are serious differences between the generals in the Pentagon and the ever-hawkish civilian officials there over the advisability of using (or even threatening) TNWs against Iran… with the generals portrayed as much, much more reluctant to do so than the “suits” who are their bosses.
He quotes that same retired intel official as saying,
- ” These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
He continues,
- The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.
There is a huge amount of very interesting material in the article. I’ll just note a few things here:
(1) Ever since I first arrived in Washington DC in 1982, there have been ardently pro-Israel lobbyists and alleged “experts” arguing that Iran (and also, in those days, Iraq) was “two to five years” away from having nuclear weapons. I even served for a few years there in the 1980s as a member of a body called the “Washington Council on Nuclear Non-proliferation.”
Well, “two to five years” was the typical time-period mentioned in those days, and over the years since then…. And now, amazingly, it’s still about the same…
In the interim, 24 years have passed, and Iran has neither acquired nuclear weapons nor verifiedly pursued a nuclear weapons program. What the heck are we supposed to conclude from that?
(2) Hersh has an interesting vignette about the consternation the administration’s policies have caused for officials of the IAEA, which is the international body charged with overseeing implementation of the NPT:
- The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran,” the high-ranking diplomat told me. The I.A.E.A.’s best estimate is that the Iranians are five years away from building a nuclear bomb. “But, if the United States does anything militarily, they will make the development of a bomb a matter of Iranian national pride,” the diplomat said. “The whole issue is America’s risk assessment of Iran’s future intentions, and they don’t trust the regime. Iran is a menace to American policy.”
In Vienna, I was told of an exceedingly testy meeting earlier this year between Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A.’s director-general, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us. ”
(3) Hersh attributes to former Colin Powell aide Rich Armitage and various unnamed European diplomats some very realistic speculation about the catastrophic, regionwide consequences of any US military attack against Iran– whether nuclear or non-nuclear.
(4) The following quote from the Hersh piece seems particularly revealing. Writing about the fears of many western leaders about whether Iran’s nuclear program has a military component or is an all-civilian venture, as the Iranians claim, he quotes one high-ranking diplomat in Vienna as saying:
- “This is much more than a nuclear issue….“That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
If indeed this is an accurate characterization of the mindset of the relevant Bush administration officals– and I believe it may well be– then we are all truly in a lot of trouble… Because these people have become quite insane. Firstly, that they might seriously aim to “control the hearts and minds of Iran”– my God! And secondly, that they could even imagine that launching a military attack against Iran might achieve that goal?!?!?
Friends, everyone has now seen three years-worth of the way that the Iraqi people have responded the Bushites’ demonstration of military “shock and awe” against their country… And it has led to the exact opposite of the US having any ability whatsoever to “control” the hearts and minds of Iraq’s people.
Why on earth would anyone even start to fantasize that this project might “succeed” in Iran?
(5) I still, even after reading Sy’s piece, remain a war-on-Iran skeptic. That is to say that I still can’t believe that– most especially after the experience the world has been through over the past three years– there is anyone in the world including in the upper reaches of the Bush administration who would be crazy enough to actually launch a military attack against Iran.
It is evident, however, that there are a lot of people in and around the Bush administration who have been busy talking up the possibility. Sy Hersh has only talked to a few of them. But there are a lot of them out there!
For some of them, the intent is most likely to try to build up diplomatic-political pressure on Iran, to try to force Iran to dismantlle its recently resumed uranium enrichment activities. (Or, to meet other goals of the Bush administration, in other spheres.)
But the trouble is that this kind of completely irresonsible, belligerent, and escalatory talk can itself have many dangerous effects. It might spur Iran into taking risky moves on the grounds of “preemption” or even that old Bush administration standby “prevention” of the US attack.
Or, it might actually start to lock the Bush administration even more thoroughly into actual pursuit of the military optiopn, since at a certain point the Prez might find himeself tied into a corner by the rhetoric of his own officials.
Plus, such talk generally raises tensions on a regionwide and global basis….
Enough! Stop the war talk! Stop the preparations for war! This is pure madness!
Whenever you hear people say something like they have, “little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons” you should take a deep breath and say, “That is madness.”
Of course there are choices other than the choice of escalatory and inhumane violence… There always are…
(6) I still have some unanswered questions about the extent and goals of the Iranian nuclear program. I’m sure a lot of people do. I don’t think that Amb. Javad Zarif answered them all in his recent op-ed on the topic in the NYT. But luckily, a team of IAEA inspectors have just arrived in Teheran to start one of their scheduled inspections there. And IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will going there sometime next week for high-level talks.
That, surely, is the way to have the world’s questions answered. Meanwhile, I think we should take all the nonviolent actions we can possibly think of to halt in their tracks the activities of all the war-mongering Americans identified so clearly in Hersh’s article. Truly, those people must have warped, distorted, and deeply hurting spirits.
Helena,
That is to say that I still can’t believe that– most especially after the experience the world has been through over the past three years– there is anyone in the world including in the upper reaches of the Bush administration who would be crazy enough to actually launch a military attack against Iran.
Believe Helena their is, its Israelis Helena, they are publicly stated that they will take action if US not do the job fore her!!!!
But luckily, a team of IAEA inspectors have just arrived in Teheran to start one of their scheduled inspections there. And IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will going there sometime next week for high-level talks.
We have them in Iraq before, Why and who believe now in their reporting and talks Helena?
Helena,
These two statements seem contradictory:
“If indeed this is an accurate characterization of the mindset of the relevant Bush administration officals– and I believe it may well be– then we are all truly in a lot of trouble… Because these people have become quite insane.”
“That is to say that I still can’t believe that … there is anyone in the world including in the upper reaches of the Bush administration who would be crazy enough to actually launch a military attack against Iran.”
I was inclined to believe the second until recently, now I don’t know.
Jay Bookman points out that “it can sometimes be useful to have other people think you’re crazy. But it is never useful to actually BE crazy.”
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060407/NEWS/204070382/1183/OPINION01
Chaps
It is a good day for publications.
Rosemary Hollis has a chilling prediction of the consequences of the adventure in the Middle East.
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/index.php?id=52
I suppose its a bit like the Thirty Years War, once it started there was no way of stopping it until half the population of Germany were dead.
Poor Leila al Haddad is reporting lisening to the artillery fire in Gaza.
Best Hersh quote:
He’s giving away the whole game here. It’s just a matter of time before a serious confrontation between the US and Iran becomes reality. The primary advantage to the longer time frame (10 years before Iran gets the bomb) is that it provides opportunity for regime change from within. But that’s terribly unlikely anyway. The other advantage is that some other US President will have the problem. This is a great advantage for Bush, who has pretty much flushed his credibility down the UN toilet.
The trouble with believing in the longer time frame of 10 years or so is that you can’t prove it, so you’re gambling with millions of lives. Once you become convinced Iran has a goal of nuclear weapons, the best time to intervene is always “Now, before they can use them”.
And if they’re “10 years” away from a working bomb, how soon can they put together a radiological “dirty bomb” that just spreads plutonium dust?
The other problem is that if you bomb Iran you’ve destroyed the evidence. Even if the US does a great technical job using only conventional munitions, the radioactivity in the rubble can be blamed on either US nukes or Iranian development.
The Iranian leadership is enough of a suicide cult that becoming a martyr may not “Deter” them from a nuclear assault — especially if they can filter it through Hizbollah or Hamas. That’s the crux of the issue. Pakistan already has a “Muslim bomb” and isn’t threatened by anybody because their philosophy is different.
Israel, in particular, cannot afford a strategy of “Deterrence” with regard to nuclear weapons due to it’s inherent fragility. Even if surviving Israeli military units can deal a death blow to a nuclear aggressor, the Muslim religion, and the Shiite and Sunni variants, survive, while Judaism may be gone forever. The deck is stacked differently for the Israelis.
The US has been using aircraft and satellites for 50 years to detect the nuclear facilities of other countries. We don’t know what secret detection capabilities the US has, except to estimate that the US has probably spent in excess of 10 billion dollars over that time to invent and develop all sorts of radiation detectors, bunker locators, bunker busters, and so on. I wouldn’t be surprised if the US has figured out the complete map of the Iranian nuclear effort. The Iranian effort is not likely to be more advanced than the Soviet program was 20 years ago. I really doubt that Iranian nuclear secrets are safe.
What puzzles me, though, is why Russia or China today would be more reluctant to take action against Iran than Europe or the US. Strengthening Islamic, nuclear Iran seems like an extremely dangerous method of weakening the US. Islam is potentially more dangerous to Russia and China than the US is.
It is becoming clear, though, that the large oil deposits in the Middle East are capable of funding military efforts of sufficient magnitude to destabilize and threaten the West. The only long term solution is to deprive these destructive leaders of their oil revenue.
I think if President Bush attacks Iran, oil prices could spike to USD 200 a barrel and there will be an impeachment move in Congress. It may all depend on how the next US midterm elections (this November) turn out. If the Democrats advance, the attack is off, for a while. Whether this is good or bad depends on what you believe about Iran.
Bush seems to always be finding new ways to top himself as the master of disaster. This article lays out a scenario that is worse then I thought. I wonder how Russian or China will respond to such an assault? Will most Democrats still run as hawks in 2008?
Maybe the oil companies can stop Bush?
Bush combines a mixture of stupidity, arrogance, sadism, and stubborness. I read somewhere that he seems to have the personality flaws of a “dry drunk”. His prestige is at stake. Will Bush concede his policies are disasters or up the ante? He does not seem to care what happens to the U.S..
Both Bush and Congress are completely out of it. It is breathtaking the cavalier way congress gave approval for Bush’s Iraq invasion. As sen. Byrd noted, most municipalities spend more time planning a sewer system then congress spent considering the Iraq war. I sometimes wonder if the inordinate amount of time members of congress spend raising money means they are removed from issues. What is the ratio of (time spent legislating)/(time spent fund-raising)?
Interesting revelations from Hersh, coming on the tail of my post over at Alive in Baghdad yesterday.
What do folks here think of my arguments that, when Bush says leaving Iraq will “embolden the enemy,” he’s actually referring to Iran, not “Al’Qaeda” as the mainstream press has been so quick to assume and continue to parrot each other on?
Please check out the post here:
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/?p=4890
And thanks for all of your insight on the apparently looming Iran confrontation… scary days we’re all living in…
Brian
And the prevailing winds in that region blow in which direction?
We know who’s going to get the big bangs. Question is: who’s going to get the cancer spores?
Stratfor has some free podcasts including their analysis of the Iranian situation. Worth registering to access. As they stress, look at the actions not the rhetoric.
https://www.stratfor.com/reports/podcasts.php?ref=060404-forecast-intelbrief&camp=060404-forecast
The problem, Helena, with your inability to believe that Bush is this nuts is quite simple: it’s called “cognitive dissonance.”
You can see how disastrous a war with Iran can be. You can’t accept it emotionally. So you don’t believe it can happen.
This is what the neocons are counting on. It has been working very very well for the last several months. I have been beating this Iran war drum for several months on Josh Marshall’s site and on Arianna’s site, and been almost completely ignored.
Everybody wants to obsess about Republican corruption (like that’s news) or tweaking some news media personality.
Meanwhile the neocons have convinced most of America that Iran is a direct threat to the United States and that there is a nuclear “crisis” that has to be resolved NOW.
And “now” will be before the elections this year in order to give the Republicans the bounce they need to retain control of Congress.
It’s going to work unless ALL Democrats and leftists immediately push Congress for a bill explicitly forbidding Bush from launching ANY military action against Iran without an express Declaration of War from Congress and forbidding Bush from using ANY nuclear weapons against ANY non-nuclear nation without an express authorization from Congress.
And then see if you can prevent Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman from pushing the “War Party” side of the Democrats from issuing those Declarations.
If you can’t do this, the war in Iran is ON by end of this year.
I thought a quote in Hersh’s article attributed to a Pentagon advisor on the war on terror to be most remrkable. In it he states that Israel and the new Lebanese government would take out Hizballah if the latter attacks northern Israel. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Lebanese scene would realize that the new Lebanese governmnet itself would be under mortal threat of being taken out by Hizballah and others in Lebanon if it makes any such ill-considered move. As for Israel taking out Hizballah, a bit of reflection would suggest that this is most unlikely to happen, notwithstanding the enormous pain and suffering the Israeli forces would inflict on the Lebanese. As in the Iraqi case the problem is not in the information available (which is plenty) but in the ideology of those doing the analysis.
I thought a quote in Hersh’s article attributed to a Pentagon advisor on the war on terror to be most remarkable. In it the aforementioned advisor states that Israel and the new Lebanese government would take out Hizballah if the latter attacks northern Israel. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the Lebanese scene would realize that the new Lebanese governmnet itself would be under mortal threat of being taken out by Hizballah and others in Lebanon if it makes any such ill-considered move. As for Israel taking out Hizballah, a bit of reflection would suggest that this is most unlikely to happen, notwithstanding the enormous pain and suffering the Israeli forces would inflict on the Lebanese. As in the Iraqi case the problem is not in the information available (which is plenty) but in the ideology of those doing the analysis.
“The Iranian leadership is enough of a suicide cult”
and what evidence would you have to support such a claim?
I personally won’t believe that Iran has nuclear weapons until one of the following happens:
IAEA says so
Iran says so
Iran sets one off
Nobody else has any credibility in this area.
I am against nuclear weapons of all sorts, by all countries. However, I fail to see where Iran would be more dangerous with such weapons than any place else.
I think the most dangerous country with nuclear weapons is Pakistan, followed by Israel.
Howzit, Hack? I haven’t seen your name much since Iraqwar.ru was cooking a couple of years ago. It seems that you are still full of doom and gloom. What about the wilder, whackier side of your personality? Is it still your ambition to become a cyborg? Have you developed the technology at all? Gone commercial yet? There’s a natural client for you we know here called “Neal”. He was hanging around for a couple of weeks until very recently. Like you, he wanted to deny his humanity. Kept complaining of “ad hominem” as if he was not a “hominem” at all, but more of a robot. Or at least, like you, he just didn’t want to be human any more.
Lashing Helena Cobban with an accusation of “cognitive dissonance” in the first sentence of your very first post on her blog is a typically inconsiderate opening gambit. Risky, too. Actually, Helena Cobban’s current readers, including even the boring ones who just come here to attack her, will never accuse here of “cognitive dissonance”. So you bombed out there Hack. All you managed to do is mark yourself with another weird solecism.
I would like to say this in your favour. Although your arrogance and verbosity are commonplace enough, the outright and explicit desire that you express to abandon your humanity is exceptional. At the time I came across it I was reading James Heartfield’s “The ‘Death of the Subject’ Explained”. Cyberpunk post-humanism appears in that book as a sort of ultimate reductio ad absurdum of post-modernism. A theoretical excess which would hardly exist, I thought, but then up you popped on iraqwar.ru.
Your rage against humanity was so prodigious that you were unable to distinguish one part of it from another. So rather than concede that there might be any good people at all, instead of criticisim the imperialists, you went after their critics. I can see that much has not changed.
Just because Seymour Hersh writes something everyone believes him?
I agree, Inkan. Hersh sups with the devil and doesn’t use a long enough spoon. Worse than that, he might just be the “limited hangout” with the biggest limits. That could have been the case all along and he never even realised it. Why would I think so? Because his work is so utterly inconsequential. As breathlessly scandalous as it is, it produces no results. This is exactly how limited hangout is supposed to work.
Susan NC:
Nobody says Iran has nuclear warheads now. Just that they’ll get them soon and their philosophy is too aggressive. See this article or just google for “iran suicide”. Hizbullah and Hamas are two groups that Iran supports that specialize in suicide bombing. This is a new feature of Islamic jihad that was not permitted before. Suicide bombing is characteristic of all the terrorist groups that Iran subsidizes.
Iran’s tactics in the Iraq-Iran war were quite suicidal. They would clear minefields with mobs of volunteers to go step on the mines. Anybody else would have used sheep.
The current leader Ahmadinejad has said that “Israel must be wiped off the map” this is a deliberate challange to Israel to make a first nuclear strike. That is suicidal. Ahmadinejad must not be allowed to possess one nuclear warhead. Maybe he’ll use it on a city, maybe he won’t. For the love of humanity, it’s an experiment we cannot afford to make.
Due to the assymetry of vulnerability between Israel and Iran, the Israelis are in a position where they would have to strike first if they felt threatened. There is no way around this destabilizing reality except to deprive the Iranians of their nukes (or let them nuke Israel, which I assume you agree is not acceptable).
Susan, what the ‘pro-attack’ people must do before anything else is make the Iranians ‘different’. They must become the ‘others’. By posting that they are lead by a ‘suicide cult’, it’s easy to lead to the idea that the populace is irresponsibe for not over throwing them, thusly they bring the results on themselves. It’s not America’s fault for attacking them, it’s their OWN fault! It worked for Iraq, and it will work with Iran.
Without a doubt the most dangerous country with nuclear weapons is America. We have used them in the past, we presently reserve the right to use them for OFFENSIVE purposes, we are contemplating scenarios for using them at this moment, and we are the most militarily aggressive country in the world.
How can you be more dangerous than that?
Warren (NOT WarrenW)
Guys
Jack has spoken.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4893126.stm
He says the concept of an attack on Iran is “completely nuts”.
So if Hersch isn’t barking at the moon, who is the candidate for the men in white coats with the straightjacket and the hypodermic?
We had a similar scare last Sunday that was immediately denied.
This is beginning to sound as strange as the plot from “24”.
Is there an inner circle that isnt telling Jack’s good friend Condee what they are up to? Hersch’s article did talk about ways around oversight of operations.
Warren not W:
I don’t think “differentness” enters into it. The residents of Papua New Guinea are really different. The issue is nuclear war. The coming attack on Iran, if genuine, would be on small sites of military value, not against the populace, irresponsible or otherwise. Nobody has said the crisis is the fault of the Iranian people as a whole.
Russia, France, the UN, the IAEA all agree that Iran is 1) building nuclear warheads 2) bellicose in it’s postures and statements. This is a dangerous and suicidal combination. This is the reality you must confront.
Ahmadinejad is exactly like a child playing with a machine gun. He lacks the discipline and maturity, and the respect for human life, that the position requires.
warren- you must realize you have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you ever been to Iran? Can you name one city besides Tehran?
Iran is a great country. Ahmadnajad won the last election with a greater voter turnout and greater margin of victory than the George Bush. Every Iranian I know loves the guy.
we are already in the middle of two wars. One largely at Israel’s behest. That’s plenty for one not too loyal ally.
it’s not up to the US to decide what is “acceptable”. israel has hundreds of warheads. it can defend itself.
I support Iran over Israel any day. Iran never sold any of our military secrets to the russians.
like fukuyama said, neo conservatism is dead. isolationism is alive. pat buchanan rules!
lester:
Qom and Shiraz come to mind right away. Never been there. Don’t care how popular Ahmadinejad might be, unless he’s about to be voted out. Iran is a great country. My Iranian friends have told me many stories about skiing in the north and construction projects in Tehran. Numerous visitors report the population is very friendly to Americans.
If the US had gone to war at Israel’s behest it wouldn’t have been against Iraq.
Israel can probably defend itself but only at the cost of many human lives lost and international chaos. A diplomatic solution would be so much better.
Pat Buchanan rules nothing.
warren- you are contradicting yourself. You say a diplomatic solution is so much better, yet you clearly favor military intervention
[quote]It is becoming clear, though, that the large oil deposits in the Middle East are capable of funding military efforts of sufficient magnitude to destabilize and threaten the West. The only long term solution is to deprive these destructive leaders of their oil revenue.[/quote]
of course the Iraq war was at israels behest. “a clean break”- (wurmser and co.) project for a new american cnetury? douglas feith? take those away you never would have had an iraq war.
and buchanan rules everything! check out “death of the west” or any of his columns. It’s called “conservatism” , the polar opposite of your apparent ideology.
Just a quick note to all comment-posters. Please be aware that WarrenW is a quite distinct person from Warren (no extra W).
Warren (no W) was commenting here first, back a long time ago, hence no need for him to specify further. Recently, we’ve heard more from WarrenW who did have the good sense to differentiate himself thusly.
Now I’m v. happy to welcome Warren (no W) back to the conversation… But it strikes me the rest of us need to look very closely to check the presence or absence of the extra W.
We do have a John C and John R who are participants here, too. But so far people seem to have kept them more clearly differentiated.
More proof of AIPAC/Israel undue influence over US policy
AIPAC and its fellow travelers in the US do not “control” our foreign policy for the Near East. If they did, AIPAC would have pushed the “send bombs and US troops to die” button long ago. “Control” is a semantic red-herring. When “influence” becomes all-pervasive it is the equivalent of control.
AIPAC and its fellow travelers, as documented in the acclaimed Mearsheimer-Walt study of the power of influence of the Israel Lobby and its multitude of government-insiders, exert enormous influential pressure – even decisive at times – over the internal processes in Congress and the Executive by which key decisions are made and implemented. This is common knowledge. And this is the story behind the story of the ranting to attack peaceful Iran. (If you don’t think “peaceful” is right, tell me how many countries Iran attacked in the last 100 years. [No, sorry, Lebanon is wrong – that was Israel on the attack which ultimately cost hundreds of US Marine deaths. Ooops, sorry, Iraq is wrong answer – that is the US attacking Iraq.).
AIPAC and Israel’s drive to sacrifice more US lives, treasure and security to advance Israel’s (and only Israel’s) agenda is in high gear. The usual collection of AIPAC-sympathetic think tank suits, columnists, bloggers, and blog commentators are working overtime to create a public atmosphere that masks the insanity of an aggression against Iraq into “pro-Israel business as usual”.
In this yet another revealing posting by Helena Cobban, we see the hand of AIPAC/Israel rallying on for the expenditure of US blood/treasure/security for Israeli control of the Middle East, i.e.:
(1) Helena: “Ever since I first arrived in Washington DC in 1982, there have been ardently pro-Israel lobbyists and alleged “experts” arguing that Iran (and also, in those days, Iraq) was “two to five years” away from having nuclear weapons…”
(2) Hersh quotes one high-ranking diplomat in Vienna as saying: “This is much more than a nuclear issue……………… The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
(3) Helena: “It is evident, however, that there are a lot of people in and around the Bush administration who have been busy talking up the possibility. Sy Hersh has only talked to a few of them. But there are a lot of them out there!” [Ref: Mearsheimer-Walt study of the Israeli Lobby.]
(4) Helena: “But the trouble is that this kind of completely irresponsible, belligerent, and escalatory talk can itself have many dangerous effects. It might spur Iran into taking risky moves on the grounds of “preemption” or even that old Bush administration standby “prevention” of the US attack. “
Hence, Helena, your call: “Enough! Stop the war talk! Stop the preparations for war! This is pure madness!”
Sadly, Helena, “madness” is not the threshold standard for expending US lives and treasure for AIPAC/Israeli geo-political profit. The threshold AIPAC/Israel standard – as the Iraq madness has proven – is “Can US money and lives be applied in this instance to benefit the AIPAC/Israel agenda?”
The Cold War proved 100% that “Deterrence” is a predictable and reliable policy instrument of peace. Yet, in the context of the reported AIPAC/Israeli drumbeat to attack peaceful Iran Yet the AIPAC/Israel fellow-travelers on our soil reject deterrence as a policy. The prelude to this rejection is what I call the “Pearl Harbor” postulation, as put forth by WarrenW in this site:
“It’s just a matter of time before a serious confrontation between the US and Iran becomes reality.”
“Serious confrontations” are the stuff of serious non-military diplomacy. State Department fare. Was Pearl Harbor a “serious confrontation”?
The AIPAC/Israel attack agenda echoes in WarrenW’s continuation: “Israel, in particular, cannot afford a strategy of “Deterrence” with regard to nuclear weapons due to its inherent fragility.”
Hello? Dissonance? I thought the American issue – our issue – was “Can the US benefit from a strategy of deterrence?”. WarrenW equates AIPAC/Israel’s predatory interests in using our blood and treasure with our very obvious interests in NOT using our blood and treasure. Wrong math! I agree, Helena, that to attack peaceful Iran is insane – but it is also the core thesis of the exposed AIPAC/Israel extreme influence in our land.
I thought we paid money for oil… you know, bought it. Part and parcel of the AIPAC/Israel thesis is that it’s OK to steal oil (or oil revenues), as long as it’s stolen for Israel – like stealing the West Bank lands. Proof that larceny passes the means test to advance Israel is not sui generis to the West Bank and the helpless Palestinians…. just consider WarrenW’s unblushing prescription: “The only long term solution is to deprive these destructive [Middle East] leaders of their oil revenue.” From their own oil, to boot! Hm, maybe give those revenues to Israel? Somewhat like the long term policy of Israel “depriving” the Palestinians of their own water.
Tell me how attacking Iran is in our 100% American national interest. 100% American – get it? You can’t, because it isn’t!
From WarrenW: “A diplomatic solution would be so much better”
Indeed it would. And it has recently been revealed that the Iranians approached the US in 2003 for comprehensive talks on security issues. The US spurned their offer. Now the Europeans are urging the US to hold direct talks with Iran and Ayatollah Khomenei has recently given his imprimatur to such talks. However, Bush is unwilling (although his administration is engaged in similar such talks with North Korea.) The US knows very well that a necessary condition for Iran to accede to its demands vis-a-vis its nuclear program would be an iron-clad security guarantee not to attack it. This they are unwilling to provide. The reason is that Bush and the neocons are after regime change in Iran.
Now who are the dangerous warmongers here?
Thank you Helena, that was quite kind. I never went anywhere, just became more of a reader than a poster. To be honest, I found that the growing ‘hostility’ of many of the posters lessened my desire to post.
It should be made quite clear that Iran is not in violation of ANY international treaty. They are breaking neither the letter, nor the intent of the NPT. In fact, it is the US (with its agreement with India) that is in violation of the NPT.
It should also be made quite clear that Iran is not a dictatorship. It is not run by a single person. Ahmadinejad’s power is quite limited in the Iranian system, certainly more limited than, let’s say, Bush’s. Making him out to be some sort of madman is a tactic used to discredit Iran as a whole, no matter what people say. Certainly every thing said about him (apolcalyptic beliefs, etc.) in the above posts could also be said about Bush.
The greatest danger facing the world today is the US insistance (with a great deal of backing from its populace) that we can pursue goals and agendas that we say other countries cannot. We can use any means to protect ‘National Interest’ (which has been made clear to include economic and not just ‘protective’ interests), but if other countries do so, they are our ‘enemies’.
This outright nationalistic attitude is a threat to the world, and the world knows it. This is exposed by a simple means; International polls show that virtually the whole world believes America is the greatest threat to world peace, yet America believes otherwise.
When a single country believes the WHOLE WORLD is wrong and they alone are right, it is indeed a threat.
.
I guess I wasn’t clear. Obviously military intervention is a problem. One such problem would be Iran using a nuclear weapon. Depending on what they did, millions of lives could be lost. The reason for worrying about Iran’s use of nuclear weapons is their Jihadism combined with suicidal tendencies. People who want to live don’t make nuclear threats against nuclear powers.
The US hasn’t gotten along with Iran ever since they took over the US embassy and continued to support terrorism, especially Hezbollah and Hamas. There wasn’t an issue of “Regime change” until Iran began working seriously toward obtaining nuclear warheads. If the US was going to invade on the basis of not liking the government, then Reagan, Bush Sr., or Clinton would have done it. The Ayatollahs have been in power since 1979.
The Bush W administration may have bobbled an opportunity for talks in 2003 with Iran — maybe the opportunity was real, maybe it was not. I don’t know what might have gone on behind the scenes. I’m not here to defend the agility of the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
All along, I have been wondering what Iran wants out of all of this, assuming they have some rational goals. I have also been wondering what Russia and China have to gain from the conflict. We can imagine Iran is on a Jihadist rampage or we can imagine that Iran is really just campaigning to denuclearize Israel. Neither makes any sense. Israel won’t denuclearize until it is recognized and a comprehensive peace treaty is signed with all concerned states, if then. At that point, it won’t make any difference. We will have peace.
Neither Israel nor Iran have tested nuclear weapons, so they cannot know whether they are reliable. Hence, they are not very useful.
Russia might benefit from higher oil prices, but China wants lower prices, yet they’re both dragging their feet on preventing a nuclear Iran.
You can blame the Bush and the US all you want for whatever you want, but it’s Iran that’s the nuclear threat in the Middle East. We cannot let millions of lives hang in the balance while Iranian Islamist fanatics wage Jihad on the world.
Iran’s defenders here are repeating the argument that Iran is within the NPT. It is the IAEA that has been complaining about Iran’s compliance, as in this BBC report. It is the IAEA that has been complaining that Iran has hidden it’s uranium enrichment and that Iran is not in compliance. See this other article on the IAEA resolution at the BBC site.
Iran still burns off tremendous amounts of natural gas at the wellheads — nobody believes that Iran is building reactors to generate expensive electricity when they are throwing away good fuel.
“Obviously military intervention is a problem. One such problem would be Iran using a nuclear weapon.”
And exactly what nuclear weapon would that be, WarrenW? The one Iran does not have yet, and is at least five to ten years from having?
And how fascinating that you consistently prattle about Iran while studiously ignoring the fact that the U.S. 1) has nuclear weapons in abundance, 2) is the only country that has actually used its nuclear weapons, 3) according to reports is at present planning for their use in the near future against Iran.
The strange mind of the warmonger.
Reading Warren’s gentle, plain, brief but thorough statement, WarrenW’s response is to say “I guess I wasn’t clear”, like an army officer, or a prison warder.
Why don’t you listen, WW? I have a vision of you with your fingers in your ears.
You were’t clear and you still aren’t clear, but Warren was very clear. Nobody is threatening you. Iran is not threatening the United States, Israel, or any other country, not with nuclear bombs or any other force.
Dominic:
No, not like a prison warden. lester said: “you are contradicting yourself. You say a diplomatic solution is so much better, yet you clearly favor military intervention”.
I was merely trying to clarify my position. I have never come out in favor of a nuclear attack on Iran and I in grave doubt as to the wisdom of a non-nuclear attack on Iran. The problem is that it might become necessary and the crisis should be headed off before it blows up.
The problem with any attack on Iran is that you eventually have to change the regime. Otherwise you end up with a never-ending war against Iran. This would be very expensive and dangerous. In such a war, it is guaranteed that at least some innocent people will die.
One of the reasons it is such a crisis is that Iran is not making demands, just threatening general mayhem and enriching uranium. The Iranian leadership cannot be allowed to possess even one nuclear warhead.
You could hang Bush W by the neck until dead and beat his dog too but the problem with Iran would remain to be dealt with. And we do not know how much time we have left.
And, no, Warren-not-W, is is not the whole world that thinks the US is the problem. In fact, pretty much the whole world agrees Iran is the problem on this issue. The Iraq conflict comes out differently, but on Iran, the world is not supporting it’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran is not threatening general mayhem, WarrenW.
The USA is regarded as the main threat to world peace, in countries other than the USA.
This is because the USA actually is threatening Iran with nuclear bombs at the moment. It is because the USA is always threatening some country or another.
It is still not “clear” if you are really delusional or whether you are just repeating lies on a percentage basis, calculating that one in a hundred people reading them on Helena Cobban’s blog might believe them.
Perhaps it is weirder still than that. Perhaps you are Doctor Strangelove.
It would be good to have data on these assertions about international attitudes. This report of a fairly recent survey of the opinions of nearly 40,000 people in 33 countries has some interesting data. If you look at the first big bar-graph on the right there, which presents the aggregated-by-country data from the 33 countries, you’ll see that Iran is the “least popular”, with five of the other countries 32 describing its role in the world as “mainly positive” and 24 as “mainly negative”, while the US is the second least popular (13 “mainly positives” to 18 “mainly negatives”), and comes in just below Russia with 13 “mainly positives” to 16 “mainly negatives.
These figures are, of course, those of the respondents’ views about the general effects of the stated country’s actions in the world arena, and not specific to the Iranian-nuclear issue.
They indicate that, at this general level, both Iran and the US are pretty unpopular.Europe is top of the popularity scale… China comes in significantly ahead of the US with 20 mainly positives to 10 mainly negs…
“I thought we paid money for oil… you know, bought it.”
Timothy L – This is where the great misconception lies in understanding our relationship with oil. The US does not just steal oil – for Israel or otherwise – nor do we simply buy it from the country of origin. US companies make money at many points during the process of development, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution and sale of foreign oil. The country of origin receives only a percentage which, as you might imagine, is highly negotiable, as are the particulars of how that money is paid and distributed (or not distributed). In many cases, the Saudis being the prime example, a large portion of even the home country’s nominal percentage ends up back in the pockets of US interests, such as arms manufacturers. The whole idea is to maximize this flow of money into the hands of US companies from the exploitation of foreign oil resources. It ain’t stealin’ Timothy – it’s just bidness! (sometimes carried on by other means).
I’m sure Vadim could tell you a lot more about this than I can, but he won’t because he has his own agenda here.
Today, Dominic, you are a troll. Fine, be a troll.
Dear WarrenW,
Do you expect the Iranians to just throw their hands up and surrender? They have been explicitly threatened. Offers to the US to negociate have been catagorically rejected (not ‘bobbled’ as you put it) amid calls for regime change. What do you expect them to do?
By developing a nuclear weapons capability* they are following a course of rational self defense. The way to diffuse the crisis is through direct negociations and this would no doubt require that the Americans provide a security guarantee (as with North Korea), and probably an end to the sanctions against the country as well.
So far this is more than the Bush administration is willing to swallow and it’s not difficult to see why. The larger context of this crisis is the rise of Iran as the dominant regional power. It is this development that the US is desperately seeking to prevent. This is what the European diplomat that Hersh quoted was referring when he said “The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
Patrick
*Note this is the dominant view held within IAEA, as Hersh’s article makes clear. The Iranians want to be able to be able to build a weapon. This is not the same as actually building one – however, it does constitute a significant deterrent to future attack.
Chaps
I am saddened by some of the opinions related here.
I am saddened to see the fear expressed by supporters of Israel that someone will detonate something horrible as a ground burst that would leave the holy sites of all the peoples of the book radioactive and uninhabitable despite their enemies not having the munitions.
I am saddened to see the Israelis getting ready to starve the Ghetto in Gaza again as they drop fire missions on football pitches and people who have fired on them and mothers and small children.
I am saddened to see people who are willing to inflict ground bursts and the consequent radioactivity, sickness and death on people in Teheran and Isfahan and Shiraz and Bushehr and Bandar Abbas to avert a chimera.
I am saddened to see the prediction of the consequences that will follow the misguided adventure in the middle east.
“EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST – SECTARIAN WAR ZONE
Conflict Coming
From Rosemary Hollis recently in Ramallah, West Bank
Europeans will look back on the late twentieth century as an interlude between the Second World War and the sectarian war that will soon engulf what was once the Ottoman Empire and spill over into what is now the European Union. It will not be a war between states, or superpower blocs or empires. It will be more like a civil war.
In the conflict to come, armies will not be massed for combat at the geo-strategic fault lines between continents or countries, instead the combatants will be civilians, politicians and the police. Cities will fragment into neighbourhoods, states into rival ethnic and sectarian groups linked to allies elsewhere through the internet and organised crime. Disputes will be over identity, with tolerance and social harmony the casualties.
Battles will not rage everywhere with equal intensity. Some states and enclaves will manage to stay above the fray, protected by tight security, intrusive surveillance and wealth. Mercenaries will come back into their own, as private security for businesses, gated neighbourhoods and politicians. For the rest, citizens will be obliged to choose between religious and ethnic patrons and militia, much as in Lebanon’s civil war. But only in some places will the conflict be deadly for months at a time – the suburbs of Leeds, Copenhagen, Marseille, Aleppo, Hebron, Kirkuk and Alexandria, perhaps.
In Europe states will survive but at the expense of liberal democracy. In the Middle East some states will unravel, and that is where the war will begin.”
I am saddened to feel that it is too late to stop the momentum to disaster.
Patrick:
Iran is not building nuclear warheads because they have been threatened. They have been implicitly threatened because they continue to build nuclear bombs and wage warfare by means of terrorism. I do not expect Iran to “Put up their hands and surrender”. I just expect them to stop building nuclear weapons, threatening to “Wipe out” other countries, and waging war (by means of terrorism or otherwise).
If I have got the history wrong, and they have been military threatened before they started building nuclear bomb material and waging terror war (and after they let the hostages go) then by all means correct me.
Iran has continuously waged terrorism-warfare around the world for many years, they must not be allowed to possess a nuclear warhead nor to “Control the Middle East and its oil”.
WarrenW, your rants are exceptionally hysterical and irrational today.
“Iran is not building nuclear warheads because they have been threatened.”
Iran is not building nuclear warheads. They are barely in the early stages of being able to enrich uranium.
“They have been implicitly threatened because they continue to build nuclear bombs…”
Iran has so far not built a single nuclear bomb, and experts say they are at least 5-10 years from having the capability to do so. They cannot possibly continue to built nuclear bombs if they are 5-10 years from being able to build one.
And you need to look up the word implicit in the dictionary because you clearly do not know what it means.
“I do not expect Iran to “Put up their hands and surrender”. I just expect them to stop building nuclear weapons”
They cannot stop building nuclear weapons, since they have not yet started to build them.
Shirin:
“They are barely in the early stages of being able to enrich uranium.”
Yes, that’s about right. That’s an early stage of building a nuclear bomb. Some think they are further along than “Barely in the early stages” but some dont. Granted, I used a short-cut phrase but I thought you all knew what I meant. We all know that Iran is enriching Uranium and got the IAEA all out of joint by hiding the process, and they are threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and they wage terrorist warfare.
I do not believe I was hysterical. Perhaps I was not mathematically precise in my wording. Given everything else that has been written here I thought it was clear. Sorry for any confusion.
WarrenW, please try to put a bit more care into responding to what people actually write. I did not say YOU are hysterical, I said your rants are, and indeed today they are of the hysterical Chicken Little variety.
Hi folks,
While a few of you bicker back and forth about vagaries of possible conspiracies and the impact of US / Israel / Iranian policy, perhaps we should raise a discussion about something of more immediate importance.
Although this thread was begun as a discussion of Hersh’s insightful piece on Iran, today marks the beginning of Occupation Year 4.
I’m worried that many people here, Helena included, may have overlooked the relevance and importance of today to Iraqi people and the Arab / Muslim world in general.
I’ve put together a piece over at AiB detailing the failure of the foreign(read Western) press to accurately delineate the significance of April 9th, rather than being celebrated as a “Freedom Day,” it more likely draws parallels to the Palestinian situation and similar anniversaries in 48, 67, 71, 73, 91, etc.
91, You may be asking? Yes, ’91, when Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait after the znd Gulf War and fled to Iraq… The memories of occupation continue to be fresh in the Middle East, its only in the cushioned “West” that the antiwar movement is able to misunderstand the significance of this date.
Check out the post here:
http://www.aliveinbaghdad.org/?p=4902
catch ya later.
Brian
PS Helena, I hope to hear some thoughts from you on today’s significance as well!
This thing about “5-10 years away from a bomb” is a lot of nonsense. Somebody pointed out that the Israeli propaganda has been using the same formula for the last forty years. It means nothing. But if you take it on board just once and use it, the propagandists will pounce and say: you see, you do believe the Iranians are building a bomb! just as Warren W Strangelove does above.
South Africa is 12-15 years away from the bomb. That’s how long ago it roughly is since our nuclear bombs were dismantled and destroyed.
Nuclear explosive technology is more than 60 years old. Who is not 5-10 years away from building a bomb? This is a mad argument. The point is to give the horrible things up. It’s called “Non-Proliferation”. The USA is busy smashing up non-proliferation. What can be done about it?
The USA has come to a point where it relies entirely on armed force to compel all the other countries to accept an economic system of tribute. In practice this means that there must be active menace and real violence done, all the time. Only the existence of real war that is sufficient to compel the handing over “the rupees” (see Macauley on Warren Hastings as quoted by Kwame Nkrumah, in ‘Neo-Colonialism, Last Stage of Imperialism, 1965) or the renminbi.
The US leadership fears that if peace were to settle in, then people would stop believing in the likelihood of war, and they would then stop paying. Indeed, the would. Hence the logic of dropping the nuclear bomb as “armed propaganda”, just as it was dropped the first time, in 1945, the year of my birth as it happens. As old as I am, my life has been lived entirely under this menace, and I’m quite fed up with it.
It’ no big deal to make a bomb. Making peace, now, that is something.
Helena,
I do not sound the call for war in Iran or anywhere else. However, I wonder about your comment: “Of course there are choices other than the choice of escalatory and inhumane violence… There always are…” Is that really so?
Sometimes, it is my impression, there may be no other choices that a responsible leader can make. Churchill was responsible. As was Roosevelt. Chamberlain was not. Yet Churchill opted for violence. As did Roosevelt.
If you are limiting yourself to the present, then you may or may not be correct. Hirsh, you will note, mentions that some of the world’s leaders think the Iranian leadership is truly mad – as does the IAEA -. And madmen with dangerous toys are very, very dangerous. So, I do not think that this is a simple minded situation – if the madmen assessment is correct. If we are dealing with madmen, then we must not condemn the administration too quickly.
warrenw- all your conclusions are based on stuff you make up. nothing is “hanging in the balance”. if we let Iran use nuclear energy then that’s what they’ll do. You’ll watch tv, they’ll make nuclear energy and life will go on. You can’t micromanage the world. If 400 hundred nukes can’t protect israel nothing can. you can’t get in the way of history. Besides, you’re paranoid. the mullahs like their life the way it is. just relax. Our ancestors didn’t make the trip to the US to be the worlds police, we came for a better life. Iranians can worry about Iran.
Chaps
Just to get back to the original topic, there has been frantic backtracking all day.
Mr Hersch has an interview on the BBC site that says it is all 19 pages of misunderstanding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4895212.stm
So now I can go and marvel at Darius Palace without having to remember to pack my dosimiter and my map of prevailing winds.
Nobody is going to do anything until 2008 until they have a Big Blue One.
rank al irlandi,
The article in The NewYorker seemed to include a lot of planted material. It is good to see that Hirsh is backing away from what he wrote.
lester wrote: “if we let Iran use nuclear energy then that’s what they’ll do.”
That’s not a serious proposition. Even the French and the IAEA have publicly stated they don’t believe Iran is just making electricity — it doesn’t make economic sense. On the other hand, making nuclear warheads doesn’t make sense either, and it’s a lot more dangerous than making electricity.
I am not writing here to urge support for a nuclear attack on Iran. I am writing here to urge the support for Iran not having nuclear weapons. The Iranian leaders are simply too warlike and suicidal to permit them control of nuclear weapons.
warrenw- Iran isn’t war like. they have never displayed any expansionist tendencies. If we arer so desperate to bring them into the democratic fold, the way to do it is the opposite of what we did in Iraq. All sanctions, wars, and bellicose rhetoric do is strengthen the hardliners hand.
lester
It’s not democracy in Iran that I’m focusing on, indeed waging war against Iran is likely to produce national unity, at least for a while.
Iran has been waging proxy war against Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas and has supplied them with money, weapons, and expertise. It is probably against Israel that Iran would first use a nuclear device, through it’s proxies. Although both Iraq and Saudi Arabia are considered possible targets. Israel is probably not going to sit by and let Iran do this, especially after Iran has said they will wipe Israel off the map. The US depends too much on Saudi Arabia and Iraq to let either one be subject to Iranian nuclear threats.
The thought of Hezbollah in possession of a nuclear device will terrify large parts of Lebanon and Israel, at a minimum.
Iran’s government considers the US a “Great Satan” and clearly feels the US should be destroyed. The mere possession of a nuclear weapon by the Mullahs of Iran is a causus belli. And nuclear fears trump all appeals to the UN or international law.
WarrenW,
In this matter there is no course of action that is completely free of risk. However, the surest way to produce the outcome that you most fear is an attack on Iran. Such an act will guarantee that ultra hardliners remain dominant in the country and that they pursue a renewed nuclear program with ever greater determination and outside of the NPT, and that any arsenal that they manage to build would be wielded agressively. Even then, however, I do not believe that they would cross the line and actually use such weapons offensively because that would be the end of Iran.
The best course of action in my judgement is the one that mostly likely to reduce regional tensions. And that especially entails ending the Israeli occupations of Arab territories. This would not completely end all of the animosity towards Israel, but it would go a long way to reducing tensions, in particular tensions with Iran.
Bush’s description of his strategy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program displays the classic mindset of the schoolyard bully. He flatly rejects any attempt at direct negotiation, because, “”It’s amazing that, when we’re in a bilateral position or negotiating one-on-one, somehow the world ends up turning the tables on us.” In other words, he knows he’d be out-smarted at the negotiating table. Never was any good with words. But just wait till recess, Mr. Smartypants.
Note that while negotiations are “ruled out,” nuclear attack is merely “dismissed as wild speculation.” To call something speculative is not to pass any judgment on its chances of occurring.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12254554/
I chuckled at Bush’s allegation about “wild speculation.” What the heck does he think the status of all his wittering on about Iraqi WMDs was?
Olmert in TIME:
“TIME: Would Israel take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program?
Olmert: As the one who has to take the decision, I can tell you that I genuinely don’t think Israel should be on the forefront of this war. I don’t know why people think this is first and foremost a war for Israel. It’s a problem for every civilized country. Iran is a major threat to the well-being of Europe and America just as much as it is for the state of Israel. I don’t think America can tolerate the idea of a leader of nation of 30 million people who can openly speak of the liquidation of another country. And therefore it is incumbent upon America and Europeans to form a strategy and implement it to remove this danger of unconventional weapons in Iran. To assume that Israel would be the first to go into a military confrontation with Iran represents a misunderstanding of this issue.”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1181672,00.html
Several notable things about this brief statement:
1. “the forefront of this war” certainly sounds like a reference to something that is happening, or is about to happen – something that has both a “forefront” and a . . .?
2. If it’s not “first and foremost a war for Israel,” is it second and secondmost a war for Israel?
3. “Iran is a major threat to the well-being of Europe and America” kind of begs for an explanation from a head of state, no?
4. “it is incumbent upon America and Europeans” to protect Israel from Iran. But not “first and foremost.” Only secondarily.
5. It’s wrong to assume “Israel would be the first” to attack Iraq. That’s what they have America for.
This guy made me puke in 147 words. I think it’s a record.
Obviously I meant “Iran” in #5 above. It’s so easy to make that mistake . . .
Helena
The New York Times even manages a tut tut and suggests it might be time to look carefully at the outcomes before doing anything drastic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11tue1.html?hp
Patrick:
The best course of action is for Iran to stop developing nuclear weapons. Israel has moved out of Gaza and is planning some sort of withdrawal out of the West Bank. These steps have not reduced tensions with to Iran. What Iran means by ending the “occupation of Arab territories” is the complete elimination of Israel. This is the only thing Iran will settle for. Israel will not cooperate with this, so if Iran persists, it is on the path to war.
The Iraq WMD-like unprovable propositions of WarrenW:
1. Iraq is developing nuclear weapons
2. “occupation of Arab territories” means other than the West Bank and Gaza
These are not facts and not provable. Anybody can make arguments about anything, and that’s all you do.
And you, like AIPAC/Israel lobby, are willing to incite Americans to expend blood (that’s 100% American blood) and treasure (100% American income taxes paid from hard earned wages in (Montana)for………… yes, you guessed it right – political profit for Israel!!!
WarrenW, I assume you have Israeli citizenship because you certainly talk like an Israeli patriot!
Timothy L,
Iran’s intentions are not entirely knowable. That is certainly correct. On the other hand, there is pretty good information regarding Iran’s position – but not necessarily its intentions -regarding Israel. Knowledge of Iran’s position is not limited to the position of Iran’s current president. He is only among the more blunt.
The real issue – the question of intentions -, of course, is whether Iran is using expressed hatred of Israel’s existence as a cover story for Iran’s own but unrelated ambitions – which is quite possible -, whether Iran plans to act on what its President asserts – which is also a distinct possibility – or whether Iran’s President was merely blowing smoke in order to improve his political standing – another possibility -.
Timothy L:
1. Nuclear weapons are in a special class, you can’t wait until they are actually used, you have to interpret from indirect evidence. The story Iran spins about nuclear energy for electricity makes no sense and the UN and the other countries of the world are not persuaded by it. The only remaining possibility is the construction of nuclear weapons.
Also, see this article in the Telegraph. Why bother issuing a fatwa unless you’re building an a-bomb?
If you have an economic argument that shows why Iran needs to generate electricity using uranium rather than the cheaper fossil fuels then I’d honestly like to hear it.
2. Iran’s leaders have said over and over that Israel must be eliminated, should not exist, et cetera.
Do you have some reason for wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons?
Anybody can make arguments about anything, and that’s all you do.
A motto worthy for the entire blogosphere.