Hi Steve,

I, like most commentors ere i would presume, would agree that if Israel does want to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons, the most logical thing to go is solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict. This would go doubly for the US government. Of course, the question would be when would it happen? Martin Indyk predicted that Obama will give a bigger commitment to the conflict in the third yeard of his term, as seen on Fora.Tv:

http://fora.tv/2010/07/21/Debate_Future_of_Western_Relations_with_the_Muslim_World

thanks for posting the Fora.tv link with Martin Indyk Imad..best, steve

Bominabajad has confidently stated on numerous occasions 'when we get these bombs up and runnin' we'll nuke lsrael, no probleemo'.
Only a douche would sit there and do nothin' knowing whats coming. Nuke lran now.

Steve,

You write:

'The good thing though is that Iran prides itself
on its rationality and complexity. Former Iranian
top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani once said to
me in response to a question, "You Americans play
baseball. We play chess. Chess beats baseball."'

'Rationality and complexity?'
"Chess beats baseball?" Huh?!

Isn't Larijani's challenge simply an awkward,
distorted borrowing from the Soviet Union's old
analogy of "You American's play poker; we play
chess."

Does "chess" beat "baseball?"
Who would/could know? It's a ludicrous,
nonsensical comparison.

(The Persian contraposition isn't even "apples and
oranges." It's more like vegetables and minerals.
With Larijani giving "birth to this 'stillborn'
trope, how is one,(you),(we) to take the regime
seriously?

Does "chess" beat "poker?"
(At least the Cold-War Soviets were elegant enough
to compare table-game to table-game.)

In reality, the strategic stand-off between the US
and Iran will not be settled by silly or poorly
worded metaphors; it will be decided in a smoke-
filled back room with, minimally, China, Russia,
and the US at the table--and if it's not, an
international catastrophe is likely to result.

~ Kevin

Mr. Clemons,

Superb analysis, particularly on China's waiting on the sidelines.

"My own view of Iran differs from that of Netanyahu who told Goldberg, "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs." While I am uncomfortable with and oppose a nuclear-armed Iran as well, Iran has shown itself to be a strategic, rational, albeit ruthless, calculator of its interests -- not an irrational, suicidal nation. It has been at odds with the U.S. for decades and displays more the attributes of a severely abused child whose view of the world and its options have been distorted and mal-shaped from being under regime change siege for so long. There is no likely quick fix to the absence of trust between Iran and the US and its allies." (Clemons)

A more apt comparison would be to a paranoid's view of the world being distorted by the fear and hostility with which all his acquaintance regard him. But they regard him with fear and hostility because he has accused them all of being in league against him, and has acted violently on his beliefs. The paranoid has created the situation he is reacting to.

Your description of Iran displays imo two of your habitual prejudices of mind: first, that no opponent of the US can ever take an independent action, but only react to the US; second, that no political leader ever acts on religious motives.

The Khomenei regime did not have to become devoted to martyrdom internally and a global exporter of terrorism and revolutionary Islamism externally; that was its choice. Jimmy Carter was perfectly ready to have normal diplomatic relations with Iran if Khomenei hadn't started by kidnapping our diplomats and declaring us the Great Satan.

You think that constitutes rational action. I say it constitutes self-destructive ideological religious fervor.

Surely Iran would be far more powerful and prosperous if it had acted like a normal national power, instead of incurring the extreme hostility of the US and Saudi Arabia by becoming a revolutionary Islamist power? If Iran had been a normal Persian power, the Gulf would have wanted to see it defeat Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war to curb Saddam's ambitions; instead, their only desire was to keep these two loathesome regimes fighting each other for as long as possible, which turned out to be eight extremely destructive years.

"The obvious question is why - if Iran is posing a true existential threat in the minds of Israelis and that there is so much doubt in Obama's reliability on Iran as Goldberg lays out - Israel doesn't deliver on an Arab-Israel peace deal that gives Palestinians a state and normalizes Israeli relations with 57 other Arab and Muslim-dominant nations. "

No, the obvious question is how anyone can be crazy enough to believe, after the evidence of the last 20 years, that Israel has the power to deliver on an Arab-Israel peace deal, short of committing national suicide. Which is what would happen if Israel tried to deport 500,000 Jews east of the Green Line, give up Jerusalem, return to the Truce Line of 1949 and open its immigration to 5 million Arabs. As we have seen, anything less than that is rejected out of hand by the Palestinians.

Certainly, after Israel became Arab-majority and the Jews are stripped of citizenship, the Arab League would be more than happy to have normal relations with the new Arab state of Palestine. I suspect you would be relieved by this outcome. Ah, will no one rid you of these troublesome Jews?

The problem of Iran, however, would remain. The Arab world would be no more reconciled to rule by a reconstituted Persian Empire without Israel than with it.

All you guys are obviously REALLY BIG THINKERS, unfortunately your REALLY BIG THOUGHTS get away from you and you overlook the obvious FACT Bominabajad has stated he will nuke lsrael when he has the means. Address that you mental giants.

A couple of typos in the article:

"...in both Jerusalem and Washington Washington."

The next is probably worth correcting:

"...an Israel-Saudi-Jordan-Egypt condominium against
growing Iranian power in the regime"

- in the "region"?

Hi ImadK, thanks for the link to fora.tv. I'm listening to it now. Amazing how many diplomatically phrased formulations I'm hearing which all add up to variations on a theme: "Obama aimed very high but failed to achieve anything because he is incompetent."

Thanks Paul - excuse is jet lag. best, steve

Was it strategically “rational” for Ahmadinejad to threaten Israel with total destruction? Is a country ruled by the fanatical precepts of a theocracy with its irrepressible LIBIDO DOMINANDI to rule not only the region but also the Muslim world with its acquisition of nuclear weapons, exercises the rules of reason? In what books Clemons learnt his history showing that fanaticism is imbued with reason? Certainly Iran’s past history is replete with reason but to apply this reason to the Mullohcracy is artlessly naive and doltishly foolish. Only through regime change, by the currently repressed democratically imbued educated youth, could resurrect Iran’s reason from the burial grounds of the imamocracy where it is interned and implement its maxims and the principles of Ibn Sina, Avicenna, and Omar Khayyam that are unrelated and totally disconnected from the Islamist apocalyptic fantasies.

Iran, a “severely abused child?” In what kind of cloud-cuckoo-land is Clemons a domicile of?

Kotz -- you often amuse me and you occasionally raise good points, but I've warned you about personal attacks. I hope you get the message.
best, steve clemons

I wanted to stop reading after you compared Iran to an
"abused child"

I know we're all invested in ghettoizing peace studies and
feminist IR stuff, and like "they're whiners, realism is
inevitable, blah blah" but infantilizing Iran does trivialize their
"strategic, rational, albeit ruthless, calculator of its interests."
Something which you yourself argue obscures Iran's agenda
and problematically reduces the significant political
complexity of the Iranian regime.

With regards to the more substantive content of the piece, I
am confident that the biggest obstacle to massive regional
conflict is the ideologically straight-jacketed viewpoint of the
Israelis which views the development of nuclear weapons by
Iran as an existential threat. To me, it clearly is not; Iran is
under no illusions as to the consequences of a first-strike
against Iran. The regime would not survive 24-hours.

To the extent that Iran is a "messianic apocalyptic cult" (much
like the United States under Bush in my opinion, although his
apparent sobriety with regards to Iran strikes makes this seem
less so) I don't think they believe in a suicidal conflict.

The prospects for regime change internally in Iran are
important to examine though. While Israel certainly has some
housekeeping to do (preferably in the form of halting
settlement and genuinely committing itself to Palestinian
statehood), I think the possibility for regime change in Iran is
a real one.

The urban and educated population is deeply unsatisfied with
the politics of the country, and as we have recently shown,
many people are willing to take risks for a freer and more
open society.

I think there is much the United States can do to complicate
Iran's domestic situation in ways that are profitable to
negotiations over nuclear weapons.

It might also benefit the United States to decide just how
politics in the region might shift were Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons and be "allowed" to keep them.

It's obvious from some of the other comments of the "just
nuke 'em!" variety that this will not be a popular opinion here,
but nevertheless, I think it's an important one to consider.

A unilateral attack on Iran next spring? Or a confrontation
with Lebanon/Hizbollah next summer? Or both, one way
or another?

Given the tensions with Lebanon, and how the problems in
Lebanon are related to the I/P conflict and the Iran-Syria-
Hizbollah chain, I wonder why attempts to resolve the
issues with Syria seem to be almost ignored these days.

Apparently Netanyahu is less interested in resolving this
issue now than a decade ago. He should be
pushed/encouraged to restart talks with Syria.

An agreement on the Golan Height issues, with the further
goal of weakening Hizbollah through an agreement with
Syria would also weaken Iran. Not only the US/Quartet, but
also Turkey should be involved in solving this issue, with
the added bonus of improving Israeli-Turkish relations
and a normalization of US-Syrian relations - not to
mention the overall reduction of tensions in the ME region.

Steve,
This piece is really well thought out. The whole region is so laden with internal and external pressures, with power games and positioning attempts, with differing explanations for behavior.

We don't really know what's insanity, what's trauma, what's cold calculation, what the end game is for any of the players.

Where there are elections, a new election can change the dynamics. If any of the leaders is close to death, a death alters things dramatically as well.

We do know that Ahmadinejad can be really brutal to his own people, that he has consolidated power. We know that countries really like having nukes as that makes them feel like players. We know that Israel calculates AND has trauma AND has a really weird internal electoral dynamic.

I honestly don't know how anyone can advocate major changes in policy in a mess like this. It seems screamingly clear to me that this mess really calls for incremental shifts and the patience of a saint. And bombastic rhetoric from all the parties involved, because, weirdly, the rhetoric is possibly the most stabilizing force in the region for now.

Until, that is, someone feels compelled to live up to the rhetoric. And that's where trauma and insanity and ideology and calculation will all come together.

Ugh.

Questions said: "I honestly don't know how anyone can
advocate major changes in policy in a mess like this."

One reason could be that the current "mess" (i.e. the status
quo that you favor) is not static, but will inevitably lead to
dramatic changes whether you like it or not.

"Given the tensions with Lebanon, and how the problems in
Lebanon are related to the I/P conflict and the Iran-Syria-
Hizbollah chain, I wonder why attempts to resolve the
issues with Syria seem to be almost ignored these days.

Apparently Netanyahu is less interested in resolving this
issue now than a decade ago. He should be
pushed/encouraged to restart talks with Syria." (Norheim)

Your assumption that it's the Israelis who are not interested is incorrect. Assad is demanding the whole Golan back as a pre-condition to talks; much too high a price. The Israelis are more than willing to talk, but only without pre-conditions. Bibi and Barak both have long histories of negotiating with Syria; it just doesn't come to fruition. Syria wants everything back but won't offer a peace treaty in return.

Face it, Damascus is a wholy-owned subsidiary of Tehran these days. The "Axis of Resistance" is not interested in talks. Why should they be? They think they're winning.

No Paul, I don't "favor" the status quo. I favor a world made in my image and likeness. But I'm not going to get that world, now, am I?!

What I favor given the world we're stuck with is very careful consideration of all the ramifications of policy shifts, a realization that getting rid of a problem doesn't mean that you start with a clean slate but rather that there will be a different problem in its place.

The naivete of those who advocate simple change is something I find alarming. There's really some crazy utopian thinking that everything will go away once X is done. But no, in fact history doesn't end when X is done.

The goal is to find some kind of manageable dynamic stability so that we don't start thinking that nuking one another is a great way to solve our problems.

Stability must be maintained even as things are moving. I think the phrase is "dynamic balance."

Nadine said: "Bibi and Barak both have long histories of
negotiating with Syria; it just doesn't come to fruition."

Well, last time these attempts ended abruptly, apparently not
due to Syrian (or Israeli) intransigence, but because of the
Israeli attack on Gaza, which seemed to be a more urgent
Israeli priority at the time.

From Haaretz (1/1 2009):

"Erdogan tells Washington Post that Israel, Syria were on verge
of breakthrough in peace talks.

(...)

In remarks reported by the Post on Saturday, the Turkish
premier said Israel and Syria were "very close" to initiating
direct peace talks just days before the start of the Israel
Defense Forces offensive in the Gaza Strip.

(...)

According to the prime minister, Turkey was awaiting a reply
from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert regarding Israel's position on
peace talks with Syria, which had been mediated by Ankara. On
the night of December 23, Erdogan said Israel and Syria were
"very close" to moving to direct peace talks on the future of the
Golan Heights.

"We were trying to be [Israel's] hope," Erdogan told the Post.
"Olmert's last sentence [as he left] was, 'As soon as I get back I
will consult with my colleagues and get back to you.' As I
waited for his response, . . . on December 27, bombs started
falling on Gaza."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-turkish-pm-erdogan-
says-palestine-today-is-an-open-air-prison-1.266939

Barry Rubin sums up the situation in Lebanon, a vital part of the discussion that hasn't yet made it into TWN posts. The ascendancy of the Axis of Resistance by itself kills any chance of successful I/P negotiations, which makes Steve's "obvious question" doubly insane. When the radicals are victorious, all the moderates will tremble and sound like radicals. Barry Rubin:

"History will record that Lebanon was integrated into the Iran-Syria empire in early August 2010...the Syrian media brags about extensive victories, including the acceptance of Syria’s domination over Lebanon by both Western and Arab countries (the Saudi king's visit marked the submission of Syria's main rival in Lebanon), the surrender of the former Lebanese independence forces, the alleged growing influence of Syria in Iraq, and the integration of Turkey into the Iran-Syria alliance.

Most Western governments and media still publicly ignore the transformation (perhaps temporary) of Turkey into part of the radical, anti-Western alliance but Iran, Syria, and Hizballah are quite aware of this huge change. Equally, they pretend that Lebanon still functions as an independent country, though Congress's cut-off of aid to Lebanon's army shows that it comprehends the situation.

Meanwhile, Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah charges that Israel killed former Lebanese president Rafik Hariri, the act that set off the short-lived Lebanese national revival against Syrian domination. Everyone in Lebanon knows Hariri was killed by Syria through Lebanese agents, who seem to have included Hizballah officials. But no one in political life has the courage to say so. And if the international investigation does implicate Syrian-Hizballah involvement, all the Lebanese leaders who once shouted in anger against these assassins will now tremble and deny it.

Other Hizballah statements include the claim that the unprovoked assassination of an Israeli officer in the tree incident was a defense of Lebanon against Israeli aggression. The extol the resistance as being so brave and strong that it would not even let a tree be cut down in Lebanon, though it is now established that the tree in question was in Israel.

Western observers might find such points to be foolish or unimportant but few in Lebanon, or even in the Arab world, will hear abou the truth. They will believe that the shooting incident was a heroic defense of the Arab homeland against still another Israeli act of aggression.

Moreover, many will be inspired by a struggle that will give neither an inch nor a tree. The message is also that the resistance will fight for one tree while the West won't fight at all. Such arguments are far more powerful than any rational matters of fact in stirring passions and shaping politics in the region.

If the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent-Turkish regime alliance is looking ever stronger and will kill over a tree, how is the leadership of the Palestinian Authority going to compromise over territory and give up the dream of conquering all of Israel? Now that the West has surrendered and, for all practical purposes, recognized the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, why should Palestinians believe that the Palestinian Authority is going to be their sole legitimate leader, especially if it makes compromises to achieve peace with Israel?

Perhaps most chilling in the rhetoric coming out of Lebanion is a statement by a Hizballah member of Lebanon’s parliament that the Lebanese army’s murder of an Israeli officer on the border proves the Lebanese army is now part of the radical resistance. The main U.S. activity in Lebanon during the last decade has been to provide aid to Lebanon's army based on the reasonable argument that it was a bulwark against Hizballah. But that claim no longer holds. To a large extent, Hizballah is governing Lebanon today, either directly, through the intimidation of violence and veto power in the cabinet, or due to the pressure of its Syrian and Iranian big brothers.

Iran offered to subsidize the Lebanese army if the United States cut off aid, an eventuality is unlikely. But the point is that the Lebanese army under the current government serves the interests of Tehran more than Washington. ...
If some day a war breaks out between Lebanon and Israel, as in 2006, and Israeli forces hit the Lebanese infrastructure hard, remember all of this. Lebanon has now joined—however unwillingly on the part of most of its citizens—the radical, anti-Western Islamist bloc and may well have to pay the price for that allegiance."

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/

Hi Paul, if you read the article you posted, you'll notice that the potential "breakthrough" Erdogan was talking about was merely the start of direct talks, not the successful conclusion of them. Since Erdogan was acting as mediator, the boast was self-serving.

My dear Steve

I am not here to amuse you nor to attack you personally. I am attacking the political falsity and naivety of your ideas. Now, if you think that this attack on your arguments is an attack on your person, then you clearly reveal the brittleness of your personality and its inability to bear the heat of debate.

Best kotzabasis and thanks for the inept warning.

You say

"The other possible scenario, seldom discussed, is that Iran's posture itself relaxes as an Israel/Palestine deal is reached. Saudi King Abdullah conveyed this"

But you mean Jordanian King Abdullah. Its hard to imagine the Al Saud's saying that in public

Otherwise an enjoyable piece

Martin Indyk said something interesting in the fora.tv panel -- that Obama has gotten serious about stopping Iran from getting the bomb, not because of what it would do to the balance of power in the Middle East, but because Obama is really wedded to his utopian nuclear nonproliferation ideas, and he understands they would be dead as a doornail if an Iranian bomb sets off a Mideast arms race. In that case, Obama's nutty ideas would have at least one practical result, I suppose.

We are going to be suffering for a long time from Obama's ambitious, over-confident and under-informed forays into foreign policy. He doesn't even know what he doesn't know. You could hear all the panelists trying to phrase it diplomatically. The words "learning curve" were used a lot.

That he was referring to the start of direct talks was clear
in the quotes I posted too. But I am worried that Barry
Rubin exerts a bad influence on your world view. Now I
notice that he tries to make Erdogan co-responsible for
killing "over a tree" on the Lebanese-Israeli border?!

You and Barry seem so sure that Turkey suddenly has
become an Islamist regime in line with radical extremists.
This is highly dubious, and an underestimation of their
self-interpretation and ambitions: I am absolutely
convinced that Erdogan, and especially his Foreign
Minister have ambitions far beyond simply changing side
(turning from the West towards Iran and Syria, etc). They
regard their actual political and geographical position as a
"bridge" as their biggest political asset - and that implies
not cutting the ties with the West, but supplementing them
with friendly ties to their neighbors and improved
infrastructure and conditions for trade in the region.

This makes them a stabilizing factor.

And although it is true that Erdogan has delivered fierce
criticism of Israel both during the Gaza bombardment and
the recent flotilla clash, this should not be read as a sign
of an "Islamist regime" wanting to break with Israel or the
West. As a matter of fact, despite the excellent
relationship between Israel and Turkey, the latter has
ALWAYS reacted strongly when Israel is perceived to go to
far. Here is a quote from a recent report on Turkey from
the International Crisis Group:

"There has always been Turkish popular sympathy for the
plight of the Palestinians. The relationship hit lows under
non- AKP governments after the 1967 Israeli-Arab war
and in 1980, when Israel declared Jerusalem its capital.
Tensions also rose during the first and second Palestinian
intifadas. Indeed, during Israeli occupations of West Bank
towns in April 2002, the firmly secular late Prime Minister
Bülent Ecevit characterised Israeli actions as “genocide”.
The relationship has come under more strain as Turkish
politics has become more subject to public opinion and at
all times of worsening Israeli- Palestinian conflict."

Involving Turkey in renewed efforts to start direct Israeli-
Syrian talks would be an excellent way to repair Israeli-
Turkish relations as well.

"And although it is true that Erdogan has delivered fierce
criticism of Israel both during the Gaza bombardment and
the recent flotilla clash, this should not be read as a sign
of an "Islamist regime" wanting to break with Israel or the
West. " (Norheim)

Erdogan is running an "Islamist regime" - self professedly -- and has broken with the West. He refused to help America in the Iraq war, he has whipped up anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in Turkey even as he has closed down freedom of the press and his opposition. He stopped doing military exercises with Israel.

Erdogan engineered the flotilla crisis. The IHH Hamas supporters are linked to the AKP. When the crisis broke, Erdogan rode the wave into making it as big a crisis as possible, a total rupture with Israel. He has criticized Israel in terms that would be familiar to Joseph Goebbels. He has a defense treaty with Iran and Syria, and has supplied Syria with Israeli-made drones, which Syria is using to massacre the Kurds.

Now is that your idea of bridges, being in NATO and a defense pact with Ahmedinejad simultaneously?

I will trust Barry Rubin's predictions of Erdogan's behavior any day, over the West's "see no evil hear no evil" pretences that Erdogan is a model moderate Muslim. Barry Rubin has called the shots correctly so far.

Dear Spencer -- your admonition about my referring to Iran as an "abused child" is well taken, and I think you are correct. I have modified this somewhat to read "serious abuse victim". This doesn't solve your broader critique -- but certainly, I think that was an overstatement or misstatement that I needed to correct. Thanks much.
all best, steve

Thanks for the insight, Steve! I almost always learn something here and appreciate reading your perspective. It's too bad folks like Kotzabasis can't find a rational basis for their arguments and have to resort to childish behavior on someone else's blog. ...Hence why they are usually too scared to post their real name for everyone to see! I'm proud to know you have the confidence to publish controversial pieces that still take other points of view into consideration, all of which are backed by your real name most fearlessly displayed.

Several weeks ago Steve posted a note saying a US attack on Iran was most unlikely. Now we get the impression that an Israeli, or US-Israeli attack is "north of 50-50. My point then, and now is that an Israeli attack is tantamount to a US attack since the US is unlikely to object, or object strenuously enough to convince anyone; or is unlikely to impose consequences, like not resupplying Israel after they shoot their wad.

This well reasoned post has brought out more than the regular pro-Israeli fanatics, which confirms that they, and their cohorts in the administration intend to push back severely on anything well reasoned that does not lead to an attack on Iran. Never mind the illogic of a theoretical 'one strike' nuke attack by Iran that would virtually assure it's own decimation (shall we remember Hillary's threat during the campaign).

Never mind the apparent lack of interest in the US of really moving the ME process towards peace, not to mention Israel's counterproductive attitude and behavior.

Israel's purported Shoah paranoia over a nuke attack by Iran cannot hold water in any but the most insane universe, and the lack of serious interest in peace with the Palestinians (the single most powerful factor in neutralizing Iran) emphasizes this fact.

We should be able to understand if Obama really pushed hard to diplomatically deal with Iran to avoid the worst of the Israeli-driven consequences. Part is Iran's own intransigence of course. But how much is driven by US domestic politics in it's AIPAC-acquiescent mode? But all we really hear is the sabre rattling.

There is always some election cycle or domestic political consideration at hand; Obama would have to be terminally myopic, or terminally cynical to really allow a march towards attack with the consequences for a US already brutalizing it's middle class.

To repeat: "...during Israeli occupations of West Bank
towns in April 2002, the firmly secular late Prime Minister
Bülent Ecevit characterised Israeli actions as “genocide”.

Does that perhaps represent a break with the West and
Israel too?

And the fact that Turkish nationalist deputies (secular)
opposed allowing US troops to transit because they feared
that the invasion of Iraq could lead to an independent
Kurdish state - did that represent a break with the West?

And what about the fact that even Turkish Kurd deputies
opposed it because they believed Turkish troops might
follow the Americans into northern Iraq and crush the
Kurdistan regional government - is that also a sign of a
break with the West?

You are simplifying complex developments in Turkey after
the end of the Cold War (which was an artificial
interregnum) and the unintended side effects and chain
reactions caused by the invasion of Iraq. As for Turkish
reactions against Israeli overreactions and provocative
moves, I have already shown above that these reactions
did not start with Erdogan; they started in 1967.

It is quite natural that Turkey after the Cold War wanted to
improve its relationship with its neighbors. Turkey had no
reason to take the role as the pariah in the region; that
role was already occupied.

" Obama's nutty ideas [nuclear nonproliferation] would have at least one practical result, I suppose."

Nuclear nonproliferation nutty?

Only in a universe where up is down.

This is the second time LeMay has been presented here as
'trigger-happy' caricature of _Dr. Strangelove_ than as the real
guy. While LeMay advocated bombing Cuba, he also constructed
the successful contain-and-deter manned strategic capability of
the cold war. He also clearly understood the random,
uncontrollable, indiscriminate attributes of missile-based
warfare, and he was an extraordinary air war commander in
WWII. IOW, he got a lot of very difficult decisions right.

There's a good profile of LeMay by St. Clair McKelway, originally
published in the New Yorker, in his _Reporting at Wit's End_. He
is presented in this first-hand profile as an understated,
thoughtful and compassionate commander, and one who had the
courage to risk his career to better serve his mission and his
pilots.

Because LeMay's leadership was forged in the slaughter of U.S.
pilots during the early air war in Europe, where he led a bomber
squadron and routinely saw mission losses of 25-50%, it's ironic
to link him with people like Krauthammer and Kristol, whose
enthusiasm for warfare seems strangely uninformed by the
personal cost of those wars.

Further to the above, LeMay's proposed rules of engagement
(essentially, to commit total war) for the air war against North
Vietnam bear review. He was right, in retrospect; the limited
rules of engagement in fact imposed wasted US air forces
dominance; if geopolitical, strategic concerns made such a total
war commitment unwise, it should have forced the question to
Kennedy and Johnson:

If we're not able to fight without restriction, should we fight at
all? The DoD was notoriously devoid of leadership with any
combat experience, of course, and the war was fought with a
now-bizarre operations-research ethic that was imported from
Ford Motor Company. Give LeMay credit for at least recognizing
that if one goes to war, one goes heavy and without restriction;
if one cannot go to war without overwhelming force and the
expectation of domestic popular support, then one should stay
home. Later, of course, these became themes central to the so-
called Powell Doctrine. Colin Powell is more beloved than LeMay,
but I don't see a lot of daylight between their mutual contempt
for the concept of 'limited war.'

This is my major beef with this talk about bombing Iran. It's not
a single-strike mission such as the 1981 and 2008 reactor
removals; it's not Reagan sending the F-111s to bomb Ghadafi's
tents. It will be a multi-day assault of great tactical complexity,
and we have absolutely no idea (imo) what unintended outcomes
will emerge and ripple through the world. Since the Iranians
have delivery platforms now with a 3,000 mile range, it's not just
an Israeli problem. But I suggest that we not attempt to solve
this problem for the peaceable kingdom of the EU, particularly
given their revulsion at US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really, it's time for some other people to do more than criticize
the USA for saving their butts from this or that totalitarian state.

really. anyone that bases an entire piece on something written by Goldberg over at Atlantic Monthly cannot be taken seriously.

Goldberg's biases are well known. He's a jackass, and a militant zionist.

Steve, I'm keenly disappointed that you would take Goldberg or anything he says seriously.

Who is this Dr Strangelove? Talking about Kotz? As far as I
know, he is an ivory trader whose real name is Kurtz, and
who's got quite a reputation in the Congolese jungle.
Someone should be assigned to returning him to
civilization.

Passive president, busy lobby
by PHILIP WEISS on AUGUST 10, 2010 ·

"Haaretz got the early copy of Jeffrey Goldberg's September story
in the Atlantic that seems to justify an Israeli strike on Iran under
the nose of the passive president.

Based on dozens of interviews the Atlantic correspondent
conducted in recent months with Israeli, American and Arab
officials, Goldberg came to the conclusion that the likelihood of
an Israeli strike has crossed the 50 percent mark. And Israel
might not even ask for the famous "green light" from the U.S.

"It appears more likely that he is part of a campaign to push the
Obama administration into authorizing a U.S. military strike
rather than having any particularly believable scoops about an
impending Israeli attack," writes Eli Clifton at lobelog. Unnamed
Arab officials are quoted by Goldberg, pushing for a tough stand
against Iran, also Dennis Ross, Obama policymaker who is
former chairman of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute.

And look who else shows up, Chicago waste management
billionaire Lester Crown, who is Jewish and was one of Obama's
biggest backers, and funds various foreign policy shops:

Israel is trying to convey the message [that it needs stronger
action from Obama] not only through the official channels -
Israeli military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin
visited Chicago recently to meet with the billionaire Lester
Crown, one of Obama’s supporters, and asked to him to convey
Israel's concerns to the American President, Goldberg reports.

Well that's about money, right? It's hard to tell where the Israel
lobby stops and the Obama administration begins, or the
mainstream media, for that matter."

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/passive-president-busy-
lobby.html

Steve,

This is such a necessary piece -- thanks for
writing it.

Two points:

1) Why do you feel the Palestinian situation
figures so strongly into the Iran equation? King
Abdullah -- though an excellent leader for his
country -- isn't the best source on this, because
Jordan's geopolitics, demographics, and local
resource situation depends on him saying exactly
what he did say to Zakaria.

On balance, it's difficult to believe Iran cares
one way or the other what happens to Palestinians.
Your talking about Arab-Sunnis and Persian-
Shiites. Iran's paramilitary extension Hizbollah
might care -- and Nasrallah might in particular --
but Ahmedinejad and the Ayatollah have much
larger, broader goals that are unrelated to -- and
unaffected by -- the Palestine question.

Relatedly -- 2)

Trita Parsi's book -- "Treacherous Alliance: The
Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United
States" -- is an Arthur Ross award winner and an
extremely pertinent, authoritative, well-sourced
read worth looking into if you haven't already.

The broader geopolitical game, I think, makes
Goldberg's thesis a bit more likely than a
progressive realist like you might anticipate.
Iran isn't a suicide state, but it is a brutal and
callous authoritarian one. Its leaders have forced
the Iranian people to suffer through crisis after
crisis as different -- mostly "political" and
"security" related -- agendas are carried out. It
is not unreasonable to imagine its leaders pushing
the nuclear situation to the brink. Were a strike
by Israel to happen, with or without the open
support of the U.S., it seems unlikely that the
Iranian leadership would be struck.

I read your article in full and skimmed Goldberg's
-- unless there is a piece in his about the
potential for Israel to assassinate Iran's
political body, it seems like the Israeli strike
would be mostly focused on unknown and potential
nuclear facilities.

So, for Iran, the risk is having nukes and having
more regional power or not having nukes and being
in the same damn situation of being surrounded by
Arabs and a first-world Israeli state that has
been attempting to jeopardize Iran's regional
ambitions for as long as history can remember.

For Israel, the stakes have been clearly stated by
yourself and Goldberg. It's understandable given
Iran's history and risk calculus that Israel would
be on edge, no? I mean, Goldberg's 50-50 estimate
in this context sounds about right to me.

P.S. Welcome back to the U.S.

Excellent analysis. I agree with you 100% on this. Given Israel's own nuclear arsenal, the chances that Iran, even if it developed a weapon, would strike Israel are infinitesimal -- for it would result in the utter destruction of Iran.

In the words of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is credited with
masterminding the 9/11 attacks, their purpose was to focus “the
American people … on the atrocities that America is committing by
supporting Israel against the Palestinian people….” As Osama Bin
Laden, purporting to speak for the world’s Muslims, has said again
and again: “we have … stated many times, for more than two-and-
a-half-decades, that the cause of our disagreement with you is
your support to your Israeli allies who occupy our land of
Palestine….”

Fidel Castro claims that Israel will not be the first to attack
because israel signed u.n security council resolution 1929.
he seems to feel that the iranians will not allow their ships to be
inspected.

i could not find the translation at granma.cu/

REFLEXIONES DE FIDEL
Israel no atacará primero

(Tomado de CubaDebate)

Los ex oficiales CIA Phil Giraldi y Larry Johnson; W. Patrick Lang,
de las Fuerzas Especiales de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la
Defensa; Ray McGovern, de la Agencia de Inteligencia de la
Armada y de la CIA, y otros ex altos oficiales con largos años de
servicio, tienen razón cuando advierten a Obama que el Primer
Ministro de Israel tiene proyectado un ataque sorpresa con la
idea de obligar a Estados Unidos a la guerra contra Irán.

Pero con la Resolución 1929 del Consejo de Seguridad de
Naciones Unidas, Israel logró que Estados Unidos se
comprometiera a ser el primero en atacar.

Después de eso, Netanyahu no se atrevería a ser el primero en
hacerlo, ya que una acción de este tipo lo enfrentaría a todas las
potencias nucleares y él no es estúpido.

Entre todos los enemigos de Irán han creado una situación
absurda. A Obama no le quedaría otra alternativa que ordenar la
muerte de cientos de millones de personas inocentes, y los
tripulantes de sus naves de guerra en las proximidades de Irán
serían de los primeros en morir y él no es un asesino.

Es lo que pienso sin temor a estar equivocado.

Lo peor que puede ocurrir es que alguien cometiera un error
funesto que precipitara los acontecimientos antes de que venza
el plazo del Consejo de Seguridad para inspeccionar el primer
mercante Iraní.

Pero no hay razón para ser tan pesimista

Fidel Castro Ruz
Agosto 10 de 2010
7 y 30 p.m.

Its comical reading these great lengthy opinions that make a marble into a machine. The simple truth about Iran's assured destruction should it launch a nuclear attack, (with weapons it doesn't have), makes the rest of this discourse kinda mute.

After you cut through the bullshit, the REAL danger to global stability can be placed squarely in the laps of these feckless and inept "diplomats" such as Hillary Clinton, Obama's political cowardice, and this fuckin' wackjob Netanyahu.

Its fun watching you all masturbate though. Gives us a pretty clear picture of why things are all fucked up, and why, eventually, some wacko like Netanyahu will start an inferno that can't be extinguished. Picture Idi Amin with nukes.

As is usual, the "thinking" here goes waaaay past the required depth. Its really kinda terrifying knowing that all the heavy thinkers in DC are cooking up fancy pastries when a simple peanut butter sandwich would suffice.

But what the hell, at least it gave Josh a break from his Gossip Column, and "questions" got another opportunity to tell us that the safest thing to do when driving off a cliff is to, well, drive off the cliff.

US-armed Israel with its secret stockpile of
hundreds of thermo-nuclear warheads (that are
hidden from the world as the Israeli government
has refused inspection by the UN’s International
Atomic Energy Agency), is very likely to be the
first state to deploy these weapons against its
enemies - and that apocalyptic event could be any
time soon, next week, next month .. and probably
as a result of an attack against Iran.

Do not be misled into thinking that Israel's
massive, nuclear arsenal, that has been covertly
constructed since the death of JFK, is there
purely for reasons of deterrence, for that would
require in the region of only 4 or 5 warheads, not
between 250 and 400, as has now been estimated by
American scientists.

And (nuclear) Israel stands nearly dead-centre of
the most volatile, unstable and dangerous region
in the world. It is also argued that the
extraordinary actions of successive American
administrations in deliberately escalating the
arms race in the Middle East, have virtually
ensured that the above deadly scenario will be
enacted within the very near future, if the UN SC
and the EU do not act now to proclaim the Middle
East a nuclear-weapons-free-zone that would
include both Iran and Israel.

Goldberg is, for all practical purposes, an extension of the Israeli government. The purpose of his article is to help build up a sense of inevitability of an Israeli attack. This "conditioning" of public opinion was done to smooth the path to war against Iraq.

The extraordinary cowardice of American politicians faced with an Israeli client state that acts like a patron will be recorded as a disastrous failure of American leadership if Israel drags America into a huge new war with Iran.

Steve, this is a fantastic essay. In fact, two of the best essays that you have ever penned are featured at the Washington Note right now (the other is: "Israel/Palestine and Iran: Linkage Should be Hard Wired by Obama Team").

While I disagree with much of what you have to say in both posts, in my opinion they are extremely well-reasoned, highly lucid and very provocative.

The "long-form" posts suit you extremely well and demonstrate why you are becoming an increasingly consequential commentator. This is the Washington Note at its best; this type of essay is much more preferable than some of the snarky posts designed to do little more than titillate the most hysterical members of your fan base.

We need a reasoned debate in this country about how to handle the situation with Iran; every alternative has negative consequences associated with it and the best way forward is not clear. While it's too much to expect that a consensus on how to proceed will ever be forged; at least the American public should understand the risks and rewards associated with all of the options; this essay contributes to that as does Goldberg's article in the Atlantic.

In your post you allude to the option of containing Iran. Your colleague at the New America Foundation, Flynt Leverett, has specifically addressed the idea of containing Iran at his blog, "The Race for Iran" and elsewhere. He cites numerous reasons why deterrence and containment won't work and suggests that if President Obama takes this route, war between Iran and the United States is virtually unavoidable. One of the many reasons he suggests that containment is a fool’s errand is that the United States is so much more powerful than Iran that a containment regime simply won't be stable.

Leverett's point is not without merit. He points out that containment worked with the Soviet Union because the United States and the Soviets were both superpowers that possessed extremely robust military capabilities. Most importantly, embedded in the idea of containment during the Cold War was the understanding that both belligerents had the power for mutually assured destruction if either attacked the other. This assurance is obviously not in place with Iran.

All the options are bad, and it is far from clear which option is least bad. Not only are the Sunni Arab regimes and the Israelis begging Obama to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities; if he doesn't, Obama's Wilsonian ambitions (which he takes very seriously) go right down the drain.

Paul Norheim does suggest an interesting alternative that isn't discussed as much as it should be. Because Iran is so militarily weak, it operates through its surrogates. Weaken the capacity of those surrogates and Iran itself is immeasurably weakened. I am very skeptical that a peace deal between Israelis and Syrians or Israelis and Palestinians can be achieved. While you place most of the blame for this on the Israelis; I think the Syrians and Palestinians are mostly to blame. Actually it doesn't matter whose fault it is. Either Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah need to be removed from the Iranian orbit through peaceful means (if that's possible) or they need to be destroyed so Iran can no longer use them as a tool.

Whether Iran is attacked by the United States or Israel or Hamas and/or Hezbollah are attacked, civilians are going to die both in Israel and in those Muslim states and statelets. Destroying Hezbollah and Hamas through massive bombing campaigns seems like a far less disruptive strategy than attacking Iran directly. Unfortunately President Obama has foolishly facilitated a surge in power by Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Had he been wiser Syria would not be in the process of reacquiring its dominant position in Lebanon and the two terrorist groups would not be as strong as they are today.

There’s a reason that all of the Sunni Arab governments supported Israel when it attacked Hezbollah four years ago and Hamas almost two years ago. They understood that weakening Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas would weaken Iran and make Iran more pliable when it came to a nuclear deal. Unfortunately instead of helping Israel destroy Hamas and Hezbollah the focus in the United States and Europe (even during the Bush Administration) was on restraining the Israelis. Had the United States taken a different approach and helped incapacitate the Iranian surrogates, Iran would be far weaker today and far more likely to bend to the international will.

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett like to tell the story about how Iran approached the Bush Administration shortly after the invasion of Iraq with an offer to repair relations; they claim that Bush foolishly rebuffed the Iranian overture. If in fact they are telling the truth (Lee Smith and others have exposed the Leveretts as serial exaggerators) it’s clear why they wanted a deal; the Iranians were afraid that they were next. If the United States really wants to avoid a war with Iran than the U.S. needs to restore the leverage it lost as a result of the Iraq War and the recent strengthening of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. The surest way to avoid a direct military conflict with Iran along with all of the unfortunate consequences that might go with it, is robbing Iran of some of the tools that it has to project power.

Want to avoid a war with Iran? There is probably no way to do that without first degrading if not destroying Hamas, Hezbollah and the Assad regime. If that’s too unpalatable to President Obama and the feckless European allies, than a military attack on Iran by either the United States or Israel becomes more and more likely.

The repeated reliance on the big fist has gotten Israel into its present predicament of needing to trick the US into a nasty and open-ended war against a Mideast nation triple the size of Iraq.

The Israel lobby's answer always seems to be to crush an opponent. Arafat was crushed, and look at how well that worked out. Now there is Hezbollah and Hamas. So the remedy is to crush Hezbollah and Hamas?

Israel is addicted to militarism, and sooner or later this addiction will lead to disaster. How many American lives and how much American treasure is the preservation of Religious apartheid in the Mideast worth?

"Goldberg is, for all practical purposes, an extension of the Israeli government. The purpose of his article is to help build up a sense of inevitability of an Israeli attack. This "conditioning" of public opinion was done to smooth the path to war against Iraq.

"The extraordinary cowardice of American politicians faced with an Israeli client state that acts like a patron will be recorded as a disastrous failure of American leadership if Israel drags America into a huge new war with Iran." (HH)

Conditioning of public opinion indeed. A majority of Americans still think Saddam had WMD.

"at least the American public should understand the risks and rewards associated with all of the options" (wigwag)

Do 'risks and rewards' include leveling with the American public that it is Israel's butt that the US is covering with virtually no significant risks to the US, and certainly no rewards? Do 'risks and rewards' include leveling with the American public about the 'infinitismal risk' that a [potential] one or two nuke Iran poses, and the, therefore suicidal, retaliatory backlash for Iran that is certain?

Nadine keeps flogging the Islamist/religious cum-crazy angle. Most serious analyst see a much more sophistocated calculus of Iranian behavior.

So are 'risks and rewards' to include leveling with the American people that for Israeli/neocon paranoia and ideological obsession, and the bounty to the MI complex, the US is to plunge off the cliff of fiscal, strategic and diplomatic sanity?

"Posted by HH, Aug 11 2010, 11:16AM - Link

Goldberg is, for all practical purposes, an extension of the
Israeli government. The purpose of his article is to help
build up a sense of inevitability of an Israeli attack. This
"conditioning" of public opinion was done to smooth the
path to war against Iraq."
-----------------------------

I agree. Although Steve says he is a bit surprised that
Goldberg does not lay out a "more compelling logic" for
bombing Iran, Goldbergs article has the effect of making a
catastrophic and insane option seem reasonable and
responsible.

WigWag, I actually think both Syria/Hizbollah and Israel
are to blame for the failure of a settlement, and my
intention here was not to play the blame game, but to
suggest a constructive way forward that could help to
avoid a war with Iran, with the added bonus of improving
the Israeli-Turkish relationship. This was not meant as an
alternative to an I/P agreement, but as a supplement to
what Steve suggested, that could change the dynamics. I
think it's worth a try.

1) Very good piece Steve

2) We all know it's not about Israel being nuked by Iran, it's about power balance and the threat of and deterrence of power.

3)We all know who the messianic apocalyptic cult is and it isn't Iran.

4) We all know why the Goldbergs write these articles...see how it replaces the 'essence' of the problem and therefore the solution and gets the amateur strategist nattering.

Pissed Off American:
"Its comical reading these great lengthy opinions
that make a marble into a machine. The simple
truth about Iran's assured destruction should it
launch a nuclear attack, (with weapons it doesn't
have), makes the rest of this discourse kinda
mute."

Why?

MAD is a non-sequitur of sorts. North Korea,
Pakistan, India, and a number of other states have
aggressively tested nuclear weapons and yet
continued with there programs unabated. The
history of MAD as a doctrine really isn't that
long, and though it's survived for roughly half a
century now, that really doesn't make it
inevitable -- as you seem to suggest.

Recall a great Thomas Schelling discussion that
was summarized on TWN -- folks need to be
"educated" into that doctrine.

For someone that is typically cynical --
rightfully -- and incisive, and it's kind of
strange to see your analysis so faulty and overly
optimistic. As delivery systems advance, and Iran-
Israel bellicosity goes on the increase, it seems
a little premature to write off the Goldberg
article that easily.

No one said that an Israel-Iran war was logical --
the argument is simply that it is as equally
likely as it isn't.

I've always felt that the best approach would
utilize a "Grand Bargain" (See: Leverett's Grand
Bargain) approach that involved mutually trusted
third parties -- India, in particular. Israel-Iran
will resolve itself when U.S.-Iran relations are
resolved.

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction."

-- Benjamin Netanyahu

Now comes American/Israeli "journalist" Goldberg, an ex IDF soldier and former prison guard, who writes "objectively" about the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran.

If a former member of Hezbollah were to publish articles in the Atlantic, there would be cries of outrage demanding an advertiser boycott and firing of the editors. But Goldberg's writing has won awards for exaggerating the terrorist threat and encouraging the invasion of Iraq.

Goldberg's entire career marks him as an agent of influence for Israel, and the spectacle of his reception as an accurate and impartial observer of the Mideast is beyond ridiculous.

Israel's perceived interest in the matter should not be given
undue weight. Instead the issue should addressed, in large part,
as a regional one. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then several
other states are likely to follow suit in self defense. Obsessively
turning everything back to an Israeli-centric viewpoint just
obscures that larger problem.

An attack on Iran by Israel or the US would almost certainly be
illegal, a point that ought to be brought to the fore.
Furthermore, Israeli violation of Iraqi airspace would create a
dangerous upheaval in Iraq, especially if the US doesn't resist it.

Anyhow this analysis takes little account of the Iranians' claim
that they're not seeking nuclear weapons. That's a core issue,
and the claim is not implausible. Iran could be seeking to
position itself on the threshold where they could move quickly to
create weapons if needed...just as Japan has done. It would be
permissible under international accords, if that's Iran's game.
Israel, with its own nuclear weapons program, has no stature to
challenge Iran in that regard. Israeli policy has been pretty
chaotic, sordid, and regionally destabilizing as well, so based on
the case against Iran, one also wonders why Israel should be
permitted a nuclear arsenal-much less setting itself up as arbiter
of another state's nuclear aspirations.

Indeed, why is an Iranian nuclear program to be treated as more
dangerous to Israel than actual nuclear weapons in the hands of
Pakistan's fragile government? Wouldn't an attack on Iran tend to
destabilize Pakistan further, and amplify the already profound
anti-western paranoia among Pakistanis?

The more likely outcome of bombing Iran would be to harden
their resolve and perhaps to make them determined to develop
nuclear weapons immediately rather than simply squat on the
threshold. It would also be much more likely to put world
opinion in the Iranian camp, and make diplomatic efforts to
isolate Iran virtually untenable. So an attack would very likely
assure and speed up the very thing that it is supposed to deter
or impede.

As for the chess/baseball comment, Ali Larijani may be referring
to the tendency of Americans to look for a single long-ball (or
"hail mary", using the metaphor of that other sport) solution to a
problem, where a Middle Eastern culture might think in terms of
incremental maneuver.

For what it's worth, I thought it was generally known during the
last years of Bush that he had turned against the Cheney faction
and was over-ruling them on bombing Iran. The fear then was
that he'd go soft and perhaps do something precipitous as a
lame duck president.

To those criticizing this post.

Speaking for myself I like the "exposure" Steve gives to the bomber boys. Heheheh.

This is fine writeup but instead of inspiring me to think about Israeli's problems and what we should do about them, it has only made my "Israel fatigue" worse.

My Israel fatigue started a few months ago when their Special Forces attacked that ship that was 20+ miles in international waters. This incident made me ask myself Israel is a U.S. ally or is simply a selfish parasite that doesn't care in the least about its host.

The answer seems to be selfish parasite.

Perhaps we should give Israel a deadline like we did Afghanistan and Iraq: give them five years, say, to come to terms with Palestinians then no more money, intelligence, etc. If the Israelis had bear the price of their choices choices alone, perhaps they'd make better choices.

I'm sick of the cost of the Israeli/Palestinian problem to the U.S. I want us to start thinking about how we can get Israel off our back, out of our pockets and off our minds.

We have plenty of our own problems to solve, I'm sick of giving so much of our time and resources over to worrying about Israel.

Something needs to change or we'll be having this same conversation 20 years from now, assuming the Israelis don't provoke World War III in the meantime.

Here are a couple of quotes from Mr Goldberg that sould be kept in mind, from his Wikipedia entry:

In "The Great Terror", the article that Goldberg wrote for the New Yorker in 2002 during the run-up to the Iraq war, Goldberg argues that the threat posed to America by Saddam Hussein is significant. The article opens with a vivid description of Hussein's Al-Anfal Campaign, including his regime's use of poison gas at Halabja.[10] Goldberg goes on to relate detailed allegations of a close relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda, which Goldberg claims he "later checked with experts on the region."[10] Goldberg argues that: "If these charges are true, it would mean that the relationship between Saddam’s regime and Al Qaeda is far closer than previously thought."[10] Goldberg concludes his article with allegations about Hussein's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Saddam Hussein never gave up his hope of turning Iraq into a nuclear power ... There is some debate among arms-control experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capabilities. But there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon ... There is little doubt what Saddam might do with an atomic bomb or with his stocks of biological and chemical weapons.[10]

In a late 2002 debate in Slate, Goldberg described Hussein as "uniquely evil" and advocated an invasion on a moral basis:

There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.[23]

Nuff said?

“Dear Spencer -- your admonition about my referring to Iran as an "abused child" is well taken, and I think you are correct. I have modified this somewhat to read "serious abuse victim". (Posted by Steve Clemons, Aug 11 2010, 8:56AM )

Steve, your quick decision to take back what you originally stated based on someone's random remarks is emotional and very discrediting to your stature and credentials.

As reflects M. Philips Price : “Throughout all the ages, in spite of Arab, Mongol and Tartar invasions and devastations, Nature through the agency of the fertile oases has restored to Iran the damage inflicted on her by man and has given the Persian that material wealth which has enabled him to build a culture of undying fame . . . The Persian is always being conquered by the sword, but in turn always subdues the conqueror by his intellect.”

Uber zionista and leader of the House Israeli Cabal, Rep. Howard Berman (Dem)CA), announced yesterday that "he" was pulling all military aid to Lebanon because of last week’s border clash with Israel.

To which Iran replied:

Iran Offers to Replace Military Aid to Lebanon

Replacing US Aid Would 'Compromise Lebanon's Sovereignty'
by Jason Ditz, August 10, 2010

The US State Department has reacted with outrage today after the Iranian government offered to provide military aid to Lebanon to make up for what was lost when the US pulled all such aid yesterday.

Incredibly enough, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley suggested that Iran’s military aid would “compromise Lebanon’s sovereignty,” yet no similar concerns were voiced when the US was providing much larger amounts of aid to the exact same country.

In fact, Crowley insisted US military aid had the opposite effect, and was actually helping “expand the capabilities of the government and thereby improve its sovereignty over its territory.”...
IPS

This should help the war along shouldn't it?

Posted by Pahlavan, Aug 11 2010, 2:00PM - Link
>>>>>>>>>>>>

HUH? I think you missed something.

Seems to fit with the following posted prior:

URGENT!: Intelligence professionals warn Israeli attack on Iran would drag US into war (scroll down to the comments section if interested further):

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/08/04/intelligence-professionals-warn-israeli-attack-on-iran-would-drag-us-into-war/

Josh M - I was really struck by your comment:
"Recall a great Thomas Schelling discussion that
was summarized on TWN -- folks need to be
"educated" into that doctrine."

It recalled an incident with Ronald Reagan after watching the 1983 TV movie, "The Day After", that he mentioned in his diary:
“It’s very effective and left me greatly depressed.”

I think this was the moment that crystallized his 'education' on MAD, and resulted in the bold proposal of Reykjavik with Gorbachev to eliminate nuclear weapons. Too bad he was so wedded to SDI. Oh, what might have been...

Pardon me, I just saw "Countdown to Zero" last night.

What is remarkable in Steve Clemons' remarkable commentary on Jeffrey Goldberg's remarkable article is that Steve makes practically no mention of Goldberg's assertions about how the Sunni Arab regimes view all of this. While Steve seems fascinated by Goldberg's description of Bibi's relationship with his father, Steve seems entirely disinterested about what the Gulf Arab nations and the Saudis are saying to Obama. I think this is very strange in light of the fact that Steve knows several Saudi Government officials quite well and is something of an expert on Saudi Arabia. What do you say, Steve? How about providing us with your views on whether or not the Saudis and other Sunni Arab nations are really praying for an Israeli or American strike against Iran.

In his piece, Goldberg asserts that there is a very real possibility that Israel will over fly Saudi Arabia on its way to attack Iran. Here's the quote:

"What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran—possibly by crossing Saudi Arabia..."

Goldberg asserts that the Sunni Arab world is just as exercised or even more so about the potential for Iran to get nuclear weapons as the Israelis are and that they would secretly welcome an Israeli attack. Here's that quote:

"If a strike does succeed in crippling the Iranian nuclear program, however, Israel, in addition to possibly generating some combination of the various catastrophes outlined above, will have removed from its list of existential worries the immediate specter of nuclear-weaponized, theologically driven, eliminationist anti-Semitism; it may derive for itself the secret thanks (though the public condemnation) of the Middle East’s moderate Arab regimes, all of which fear an Iranian bomb with an intensity that in some instances matches Israel’s..."

While Steve does allude to the comments of the UAE Ambassador imploring the United States to attack Iran, he does so in the context of the Ambassador's plea for the United States to forge a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. But what Steve fails to mention is the Ambassador's suggestion that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, then the small and very wealthy Gulf States will decide to align themselves with Iran instead of the United States. This is an amazing statement; it would be great to get Steve's take on this. Here's the money quote:

"A few weeks ago, in uncommonly direct remarks, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the United States, Yousef al-Otaiba, told me—in a public forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival—that his country would support a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He also said that if America allowed Iran to cross the nuclear threshold, the small Arab countries of the Gulf would have no choice but to leave the American orbit and ally themselves with Iran, out of self-protection. “There are many countries in the region who, if they lack the assurance the U.S. is willing to confront Iran, they will start running for cover towards Iran,” he said. “Small, rich, vulnerable countries in the region do not want to be the ones who stick their finger in the big bully’s eye, if nobody’s going to come to their support."

Apparentley the Arab leaders think that attacking Iran would be a relatively easy venture for the United States; the Sunni Arab regimes believe that America's standing in the Middle East depends on our willingness to attack Iran. Here's what Goldberg said in his article."

"Several Arab leaders have suggested that America’s standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran. They argue self-interestedly that an aerial attack on a handful of Iranian facilities would not be as complicated or as messy as, say, invading Iraq. “This is not a discussion about the invasion of Iran,” one Arab foreign minister told me. “We are hoping for the pinpoint striking of several dangerous facilities. America could do this very easily."

Amazingly, Goldberg reveals that Dennis Blair was fired by Obama because Blair agreed with the Arab nations that Obama needed to voice a more belligerant attitude towards Iran. I haven't heard this anywhere before; maybe Steve has. Either way, it strikes me as astounding that Dennis Blair might have been fired for being too vociferous in agreeing with the Sunni Arab regimes that Obama needed to take a harder line on Iran. Is it just me or does Steve find this extraordinary as well? Here's where Goldberg mentions this:

"The best way to avoid striking Iran is to make Iran think that the U.S. is about to strike Iran. We have to know the president’s intentions on this matter. We are his allies.” (According to two administration sources, this issue caused tension between President Obama and his recently dismissed director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair. According to these sources, Blair, who was said to put great emphasis on the Iranian threat, told the president that America’s Arab allies needed more reassurance. Obama reportedly did not appreciate the advice.)"

The most remarkable line in Goldberg's entire story is where he suggests that Saudi Arabia might actually assist Israel in its attack against Saudi Arabia by "turning off its radar" as Israeli fighter jets overflew its territory and that they might actually assist in refueling Israeli jets on the return voyage home. This is incredible but Steve doesn't mention it in his commentary. The quote from the Goldberg article is this:

"Israeli planes would fly low over Saudi Arabia, "bomb their targets in Iran, and return to Israel by flying again over Saudi territory, possibly even landing in the Saudi desert for refueling—perhaps, if speculation rife in intelligence circles is to be believed, with secret Saudi cooperation."

Given everything he knows about Saudi Arabia, why is Steve withholding from his loyal readers his take on what Goldberg is saying about the Saudis and other Sunni Arab regimes? I know that Steve tends to obsess about Israel, but at least if Goldberg is right, this story is as much about Sunni Arab fear of Iran as it is of Israeli fear of Iran.

Is Goldberg right or wrong about this? It would be interesting to know what Steve thinks. For reasons that are hard to understand, Steve seems to be assidious in his avoidence of discussion about how Saudi Arabia and its allies view the Iranian threat.

I'm an Israeli who served as an officer in the IDF.
When you claim that Israel cannot prepare itself for a possible military conflict with Iran and at the same time avoid serious engagement on the resolution of the Palestinian question, your argument is logically perfect. Except that the Bibi and his allies on the Israeli right, and even more the religious among them, are not reasoning logically. We used to say that the Arabs are not rational but the Israeli right is as much so. If someone believe in Israel's divine destiny, all your arguments are secondary. Thus don't count too much on the rational arguments. The only hope is that Ehud Barak, who is not a messianic, will be able to prevent the Israeli attack.

"While Steve seems fascinated by Goldberg's description of Bibi's relationship with his father, Steve seems entirely disinterested about what the Gulf Arab nations and the Saudis are saying to Obama. I think this is very strange in light of the fact that Steve knows several Saudi Government officials quite well and is something of an expert on Saudi Arabia. What do you say, Steve? How about providing us with your views on whether or not the Saudis and other Sunni Arab nations are really praying for an Israeli or American strike against Iran." (Wigwag)

That's an excellent point, esp. in light of published reports that what changed the Obama administration's stance was an ultimatum from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Once Iran has the bomb, it will be hegemon of the Gulf, which means an unstable revolutionary regime despised by most of its own population, with a dysfunctional economy and a youth bulge, will have its boot on the neck of the world's oil supply. Sound stable to you?

Enough with this crazy idee fixe about the Israeli/Palestinian issue being at the core of the Mideast's problems. Reza Aslan calls the Palestinian issue a "shiny monkey" -- as in, "don't look over here, look at that shiny monkey over there!" -- and that's about right. It's a distraction, one that works reliably in the Arab world ("us against the infidel"), so pols use it again and again. Very handy, that shiny monkey. Not something they want to give up.

Yoni, it seems to me that Iran has been working overtime to feed Israeli "craziness" -- Holocaust denial, confident predictions of Israel's imminent destruction, musing about Iran's being able to survive an Israeli second strike -- you hardly need have any kind of religious vision at all to think the situation is apocalyptic.

It's hardly just the right in Israel that thinks an Iranian bomb is an existential threat.

"For what it's worth, I thought it was generally known during the
last years of Bush that he had turned against the Cheney faction
and was over-ruling them on bombing Iran. The fear then was
that he'd go soft and perhaps do something precipitous as a
lame duck president." (smitheus)

It was widely known among those who could view the Bush administration rationally. But most of the readers or commentators on TWN are not rational when it comes to the Bush administration.

Doesnt common sense dictate that Jeffrey Goldberg is not to be trusted after the lies he fed us before the Iraq war?

"That's an excellent point, esp. in light of published reports that what changed the Obama administration's stance was an ultimatum from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia." (Nadine)

I think it's hard to overstate how extraordinary some of the assertions Goldberg makes in his article are.

If Goldberg is to be believed, there is a very good chance that Israel will over-fly Saudi Arabia on its way to and from an attack on Iran. Goldberg actually mentions credible sources who suggest that Saudi Arabia may assist Israel in this regard by figuratively turning off its radars and by refueling Israeli jet fighters in the deserts of the Kingdom.

In light of the fact that Goldberg says that the Israelis won't give the Obama Administration any advance warning of the attack, the logical implication is that the Saudis will be notified in advance while the United States won't be. In effect, the Israelis and the Saudis will be conspiring to attack Iran behind the backs of the Americans. It's hard to overstate how amazing Goldberg's assertion is.

Of course, it may or may not be true. But if it is true, it suggests that whatever else the Israelis and the Saudis disagree on, they have one major area of agreement; both nations have concluded either rightly or wrongly that the American President is a feckless incompetent who can't be trusted to do the right thing.

Israel's classification scheme for Mideast countries seems to have just two categories: potenially hostile and existential threat. The latter category is applied to states that it wishes to have destroyed by the USA. Thus Iraq, a country battered and weakened by military defeat and economic sanctions, was declared an "existential threat" and crushed by America, with one quarter of its population killed, wounded or displaced, and its museums, libraries, and public infrastructure shattered, often beyond repair.

America's armed forces have become Israel's wrecking crew, and Iran has been designated as our next job. We can now look forward to the prospect of trashing another ancient Mideast country and earning the scorn of the world for reducing an entire nation to abject misery (stuff happens). Nobody even talks about the gross illegality of another "pre-emptive" war. The Nuremberg principles are considered quaint. All that matters is the unbreakable grip of the Israel lobby on the funding of American politicians.

Caroll, you are correct. I guess I'm reacting to Steve Clemons' reluctance in accepting POA's invitation to bring Hillary Clinton under the spot light.

Goldberg's a propagandist for the Israelis, take no notice.

Dual loyalty is treason!

(take note nadine and wigwag)

Let's hope this ISN'T Obama's "Cuban Missle Crisis." This guy is no JFK.

In reading Steve's comments (on this the 65th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atom bombs and VJ Day) re Jeffrey Goldberg's piece, I definitely feel a generational gap. People forget what a real war could do. As a survivor of General Curtis LeMay's Fire Bombing (in deference to my Jewish friends I will not use the term "Holocaust" although that is what it was) of Tokyo and 63 other Japanese cities, I would say that whatever is planned by Netanyahu against Iran, short of a nuclear attack, cannot be compared to what Curtis Lemay did to Japan. I am here, able to say so, thanks to my parents who moved my brothers and I from city to city ahead of the bombings. Here is an account of the Tokyo Bombing (first of the three raids) from Wikipedia:

"This included the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9–10, 1945, the most destructive bombing raid of the war...LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and napalm and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000 to 9,000 feet over Tokyo...just after midnight on March 10...In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing some 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city...Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left 5 million homeless." The homeless included my family and practically all my relatives.

Were the Japanese angry at Curtis Lemay? Surprisingly, On December 7, 1964 the Japanese government conferred on him the First Order of Merit with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun. That was the year of the Tokyo Olympics, but why the Japanese gave top honors to Curtis Lemay might be discussed separately. Certainly, the Iranian response to Netanyahu would not be the same. (kdk 8-12-2010)

In reading Steve's comments (on this the 65th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atom bombs and VJ Day) re Jeffrey Goldberg's piece, I definitely feel a generational gap. People forget what a real war could do. As a survivor of General Curtis LeMay's Fire Bombing (in deference to my Jewish friends I will not use the term "Holocaust" although that is what it was) of Tokyo and 63 other Japanese cities, I would say that whatever is planned by Netanyahu against Iran, short of a nuclear attack, cannot be compared to what Curtis Lemay did to Japan. I am here, able to say so, thanks to my parents who moved my brothers and I from city to city ahead of the bombings. Here is an account of the Tokyo Bombing (first of the three raids) from Wikipedia:

"This included the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9–10, 1945, the most destructive bombing raid of the war...LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosphorus bombs, and napalm and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000 to 9,000 feet over Tokyo...just after midnight on March 10...In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing some 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km2) of the city...Precise figures are not available, but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left 5 million homeless." The homeless included my family and practically all my relatives.

Were the Japanese angry at Curtis Lemay? Surprisingly, On December 7, 1964 the Japanese government conferred on him the First Order of Merit with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun. That was the year of the Tokyo Olympics, but why the Japanese gave top honors to Curtis Lemay might be discussed separately. Certainly, the Iranian response to Netanyahu would not be the same. (kdk 8-12-2010)

Listening to Noam Chomsky the other day he suggested part of the reason we're in Afghanistan is so a pipeline could be built through Afghanistan to India, preventing the sole source of gas to India being a pipeline from Iran.
If India were to become dependent on energy from Iran, I've got to think this problem could become a lot more complicated.

The Ron Tira memorandum (Strategic Assessment, Vol. 13, No. 1, July
2010), is the evidence I would cite of Israeli thinking. The memo does not
imply that Israelis have decided on an air strike but its publication by the
leading Israeli center for strategic analysis does seem to indicate a public
willingness now to ponder the consequences.

On Israel/Palestine, the moment for Israel to make a dramatic offer to the
Palestinian Arabs could be the day after an air strike on Iran, not in the
weeks or months that might precede it. It will be on the day after a strike
that the world will be staring at a potential energy catastrophe and that
America will be desperate to put a lid on the crisis. An Israeli offer the day
after, to withdraw from the West Bank in exchange for a defense treaty with
the United States, would make it easier for the Arab world to support the
strike and would do so under a changed set of circumstances.

These include at least a strong chance of a leadership crisis in Iran.
Hezbollah will fire their rockets into Israel but Israel can evict them from
firing range, and Iran's own options for retaliation will be limited to
guerrilla warfare and terrorism once they have fired their own missiles. But
few of the Shia Arabs in Iraq or Dari-speaking Afghans are likely to oblige
Tehran by attacking US forces in their countries, and the Arab street is not
going to rise up against Sunni regimes on behalf of Persia if they were
unwilling to do so for Saddam Hussein in two gulf wars.

The mullahs in Tehran will face the asymmetry of what they can actually do,
if they go after America, and will face charges of weakness if they don't.
With a total trade embargo sinking in as well, the Iranian street could
decide to get rid of the mullahs just as the Argentines ousted the generals
in the aftermath of the Falklands War. Iran will not abandon its pursuit of a
nuclear capability, but Iranians may judge the mullahs too reckless to be in
charge of it, and America and Israel may be more inclined to tolerate a
Japan-like capability under a less inflammatory government.

However, there are two obvious dangers. One is the risk that the mullahs
might survive in power with popular support and carry on a protracted war
with the United States. Attacks on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
could intensify if Iranian revolutionary guards and special forces can be
supplied and indefinitely replaced over the distances involved.

The other would be if the mullahs accept a ceasefire and stay in power. If
Russia and China then equip Iran with more advanced air defenses and
anti-ship missiles, Iran could resume its nuclear program a year or two
later and raise the cost of another air strike. Pipelines from Iran to China
could reduce the threat of maritime sanctions.

Overall, I think the prospects for an Israeli air strike, in the sense of giving
Israel a better outcome in the medium-term, are not as bleak as Steve
suggests. But there is no question that an air strike by Israel would involve
enormous and probably incalculable risks. If it is true that Israelis are now
leaning toward an air strike, then the world could face tremendous
upheaval very soon. This is no time for business as usual diplomacy.

Steve,
Why does Goldberg have any credibility...didn't he hype WMD in Iraq in 2002 when writing for The New Yorker? Have you guys no decency to censor one of your own who got it so wrong?

Steve,
Why does Goldberg have any credibility...didn't he hype WMD in Iraq in 2002 when writing for The New Yorker? Have you guys no decency to censor one of your own who got it so wrong?

Nadine,
No it is not only the religious right that sees the Iranian threat as existential. But it is ONLY the right (religious or not) who is convinced that holding the territories as an occupying force does not hurt Israel's geostrategic position in general and vs Iran in particular.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

Let us give this contretemps its proper name: the Theater of Balderdash.

Any attack on Iran would not end well
Thursday, August 5, 2010 02:54 AM

The Columbus Dispatch

When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on
NBC's Meet the Press whether the U.S. has a military plan for an
attack on Iran, he replied: "We do."

General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely
contingencies. But what the planning process will have revealed
is that there is no way for the United States to win a non-nuclear
war with Iran.

The U.S. could "win" by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons
on Iran's military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centers
(i.e. cities) and killing 5 million to 10 million people, but short of
that, nothing works. On this, we have the word of Richard
Clarke, counterterrorism adviser in the White House under three
administrations.

Clarke revealed to The New York Times four years ago that, in
the early 1990s, the Clinton administration had considered
seriously a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military
professionals told them not to do it.

The Pentagon's planners have conducted war games to model an
attack on Iran several times in the past 15 years, and they just
can't make it come out as a U.S. victory.

There's nothing the U.S. can do to Iran, short of nuking the
place, that would force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy. It can
bomb Iran's nuclear sites and military installations to its heart's
content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.

And there is no way that the United States could invade Iran.
There are some 80 million people in Iran, and although many of
them don't like the present regime, almost all are fervent
patriots who would resist invasion. Iran is a mountainous
country four times the size of Iraq. The Iranian army is slightly
smaller than the U.S. Army. But unlike the U.S. Army, its troops
are not scattered across literally dozens of countries.

If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor
military incursions along Iran's south coast, senior American
generals would resign in protest. Without the option of a land
war, the only lever the United States would have is the threat of
yet more bombs - but if they aren't nuclear, they aren't
persuasive.

Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on
the United States. Just stopping Iran's own oil exports would
drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market: Iran accounts for
around 7 percent of internationally traded oil. But it also could
block another 40 percent of global oil exports just by sinking
tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf
states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.

The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the
Chinese YJ-82. It has a 140-mile range, enough to cover all the
major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of
sound just yards above the sea's surface, and it has a tiny radar
profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98
percent.

Iran's mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern
side of the Gulf, and these missiles' mobile launchers are easily
concealed. They would sink tankers with ease, and in a few days
insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would
become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region's oil
exports.

Meanwhile Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air
missiles to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that would soon shut
down the U.S. military effort there.

Iranian ballistic missiles would strike U.S. bases on the southern
(Arab) side of the Gulf, and Iran's Hezbollah allies in Beirut would
start dropping missiles on Israel. The United States would have
no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and
pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the
world's industries and transport ground to a halt.

The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the United States
and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of
the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war game the
Pentagon played, and Mullen knows it. It is all bluff. It always
was.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose
articles are published in 45 countries.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/
08/05/any-attack-on-iran-would-not-end-well.html?sid=101

"In our 2007 book on the Israel lobby, John Mearsheimer and I
wrote (emphasis added):

Although there is still some chance that President Bush will
decide to attack Iran before he leaves office, it is impossible to
know for sure. There is also some possibility, given the inflexible
rhetoric of the presidential candidates, that his successor will do
so, particularly if Iran gets closer to developing weapons and if
hard-liners there continue to predominate. If the United States
does launch an attack, it will be doing so in part on Israel's
behalf, and the lobby will bear significant responsibility for
having pushed this dangerous policy."

As one would expect, Goldberg wrote a rather hysterical
negative review of the book when it came out, and he enjoys
calling us names and leveling unfounded accusations. It is
therefore somewhat surprising that he is now doing his best to
demonstrate how right we were."

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

What a big heaping pile of crazy talk this thread is.

It seems as though both sides of the debate wanna paint ActungAintHeBad as the crazy one in this mix.

But really, wheres the unknown here? The Boogie Man ain't got no nukes, We know that. Israel does. We know that too. So does Russia, so does China. So do we.

So really, we KNOW that Iran can't launch a nuclear attack, don't we? But we haven't a fuckin' clue what may happen if Israel gets down and dirty, and sucks us into a war with Iran. And there is a multitude of ways these duplicitous sacks of shit in the Knesset and their wackjob racist Gorilla-On-Duty can do it, not the least being a false flag attack blamed on the Iranians. Its not like they haven't done it before, is it?

And enough with the "diplomacy hasn't worked" horseshit. If that crap Clinton pulled can be considered "diplomacy", than we can all kiss our asses goodbye, because that wretched excuse for an SOS is gonna "diplomacy" us right into a nuclear holocaust. Hillary's "diplomacy" with Iran, at least that that was aired publically, consisted of, "We're gonna engage you, it ain't gonna work, we'll need crippling sanctions, and fuck you very much".

Now just who the hell is crazy? This gonad deficient posturing jackass Obama, who has proven time and again that he has absolutely NO conviction??? This pathetic excuse for an SOS that thinks "diplomacy" and "engagement" means "Tell them to kiss my ass"???? Or Netanyahu, who thinks the billions we send him is payment for allowing him to drag us into some unpredictable and dangerous military adventure against Iran based on the exact same kind of boogie man horseshit and contrived threat propaganda that dragged us into Iraq?

The crazy ones here are the ones steering OUR ship. THEY'RE the real "threat". If I was today's designated boogie man, I'd want nukes too. Just look at what we did to Iraq.

And it is laughable beyond belief that some of the assholes prattling here on this thread think that the Iranian people are gonna come over to our way of thinking after we've bombed the Bejesus out of their country and killed a few thousand of them. Talk about crazy, THAT premise scores a twenty on the Craziness Meter.

Our country would be far better served if we scooped about 76% of the brain cells out of the skull cases of these DC deep thinkers. And don't expect to find "gray matter", either. My money is riding on the bet that you're gonna strike brown.

Crazy???? Crazy is letting this racist little country of Israel drain our coffers, destroy our credibility, and do its damnedest to drag us off the same cliff its determined to leap off of.

"No it is not only the religious right that sees the Iranian threat as existential. But it is ONLY the right (religious or not) who is convinced that holding the territories as an occupying force does not hurt Israel's geostrategic position in general and vs Iran in particular. " (Yoni)

I think it would be more accurate to say that the right sees the costs of the current situation, but thinks the costs of continuing the current situation are far less than the costs of repeating the Gaza Withdrawal in the West Bank, and seeing it too turn into Hamastan.

There won't be an agreement without some compromise on the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side. At this moment, with the radicals in ascendance, it is completely impossible for the PA to make even the slightest compromise. They would be marked for death as traitors by Hamas.

nadine:

Unless Jews leave Jerusalem and the control of the Noble Sanctuary is returned to Muslims, the war will not end.

The 3rd holiest site in Islam does not belong to the Palestinians to dispose of as they wish.

And Jews won't leave Jerusalem.

The war will go on.

Everything is on the table? I'm not so sure about that.

To begin with, you fight fire with water. You don't fight fire with fire until you have exhausted all other possibilities, simply because the wind may shift, and burn your own sorry self to a crisp with the very fire you just set, the probable outcome resulting from any brainless Israeli bombing run on Iran.

There are several big barrels of water we have yet to tap into in our efforts to keep the fire of war at bay. The first is Israeli encroachment in East Jerusalem. The second is Israeli encroachment in the West Bank. The third is the Israeli internment of Gaza. The fourth is the Israeli nuclear arsenal. This bounding leap to the unsustainable conclusion that Iran will become the existential threat to Israel, as the Shoah was to Jewish existence, once Iran possesses a single nuke, is a rather lengthy stretch. We are not talking about Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We are talking about Iran. The US intelligence community has severe doubts about current Iranian capability, which I think are legitimate.

I think one main reason lies behind that conclusion, namely, the fond Israeli wish to preserve unfettered freedom of action. Denial of any linkage also functions to preserve freedom of action. Well, too bad. It is past time Israel started to dip into those barrels and poured that water on that flame.

To use another analogy, maybe it is chess. Maybe it's all about getting and using leverage. Maybe the Iranians have built themselves enough of a pawn or a rook that Israel might just have to trade something of substance for, instead of resorting to more futile military action.

Ten thoughts and questions:

1. If Israel does this, will they do it before or after the US election? I would assume that their timing calculations are based on procuring the greatest possible US buy-in and assistance, and they will strike at a time when political winds and pressures in the US are most likely to be pushing in a direction favorable to US participation.

2. In the event of an Israel-Iran war, do the Iranians or their allies have the capability to strike Dimona in any way?

3. It appears we are already entering High Pundit season, where our bestest, brightest and famousest stars in the firmament of generalist pontificators will now be winging it daily on Iran. Despite Obama's claimed intention of diminishing the role of "gut" in Washington decision-making, and enhancing the role of science in his administration, the national debate on this issue remains remarkably science-free. As far as I know, none of the major voices driving the debate - people like Kagan, Ignatius, Feaver, Goldberg, etc. - has the technical or intelligence expertise to make an informed judgment on Iran's actual capabilities. They are all political scientists, historians, novelists and journalists. And as usual these days, the American people are not permitted to know what the government knows. So we just have the usual groping and pre-rational discussion and beltway mill of rumor and conventional wisdom, where amateur conjectures are elevated through sheer repetition to realm of established fact. (My conjectures here are also amateurish ones, but oh, how I wish they were conventional wisdom.) It's 2002 again, and we might as well be talking about aluminum tubes, Nigerian yellowcake and mobile germ labs.

4. I assume Israel's main aim in this business is to take out Hizbollah and Hamas, which they are eager to do for its own sake,; and the fact that they will thereby saw off two important legs of Iran's regional stool is a side-benefit. Iran is a strategic competitor in the region, and Israel is also anxious to prevent any sort of thawing or opening between Washington and Tehran. I am very skeptical that serious Israeli security people are biting their nails over the Iranian "existential threat" to Israel. That drama is for the ordinary folks - the hyperventilators, as Steve would call them.

5. An Israel-Iran war might begin with a sudden and unprovoked assault by air. But to procure some measure of global political sympathy, it might well begin with an initial round of provocations and fighting in Lebanon with Hizbollah, fighting which is then allowed to escalate. I would also keep an eye on the Arabian Peninsula. A Khobar Towers-like attack that is pinned on Iran or Hizbollah might help give Abdullah the political cover he needs to permit an Israeli flyover.

6. The Israelis, it seems to me, are still smarting and embarrassed over their 2006 Lebanon stalemate, and want payback. The hawks in Israel and the US - including our current Secretary of State as I recall - attempted to escalate that war into a larger one. It didn't work. Bush and Rice talked tough, but didn't bite. I wonder what the hawks will try this time to replace what failed last time?

7. Whatever his motives or current thinking might be, Obama's nuclear non-proliferation initiative is DOA if he goes along with this business. The upshot of US moral support and material assistance for an Israeli attack - support and assistance which are a virtual certainty if Israel pulls the trigger - is that the US would have helped a nuclear rogue country, one of the very few countries that refuses to sign the NPT and refuses to disclose its nuclear weapons capabilities, in its strike on an NPT country that does not have a nuclear weapon, does not have break-out capability, and is in generally good official compliance with the NPT regime except for an "additional protocol". Even pretending he might take this step, as an exercise in high-stakes brinkmanship, damages his non-proliferation initiative. Actually taking the plunge will likely kill it. The lesson a good part of the world would rationally draw about US intentions and commitments is that you can do pretty much whatever you want, atomically speaking, so long as you are aligned with the US. In 2003, we at least pretended to believe Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In 2010, are we saying we don't need no stinking WMD.

8. I'll assume that Obama sincerely doesn't want this to happen. He has attempted to appease the Israelis with his sanctions regime, and is possibly hoping that he can use those sanctions to run out the clock for at least another year or two, and then hope that Israeli electoral politics take care of his problem with the Israeli hardliners and militants. But what contingency plans does Obama have in place for preventing escalation in the event of an Israeli strike, and for bringing the hostilities to a close as rapidly as possible? Will he find a way to run events, or will they run him?

9. The US cannot win a war against Iran - and the others who would join it on Iran's side - with its current force levels. Make sure your children have their passports in order. Which countries will offer refuge to young American men and women fleeing a draft?

10. I said before that I would assume that Obama sincerely doesn't want a war to happen. However, that assumption is subject to serious doubt. Famously, he offered to "extend a hand to Iran". Nevertheless, the public diplomatic posture the US has adopted so far in alleged pursuit of that policy - one based on humiliation, hectoring, routine threats and supercilious sneering - seems deliberately geared toward making sure that there is virtually no realistic possibility of Iranian reciprocation. The approach, it would appear, is to extend a hand covered in feces, and then protest, "This reprobate won't shake my hand."

War In Context (dot) Org notes the game here -- to pressure the U.S. government to take charge of the strike on Iran itself, rather than letting the Israelis do it in a half-assed way.

Some commenters have speculated that important sections of the civilian and military leadership are already gung-ho for military action against Iran, and will use articles like these to co-opt the skeptics.

Let me make a prediction right now -- serious military engagement with Iran will wreck the already fragile U.S. economy once Iranian countermeasures cause oil prices to skyrocket. Not that chickenhawks care, the f*ckin morons...

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/Iran%20Report%202010_0.pdf

"Put bluntly, war is not an option in responding to the difficult issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Interesting comparison. Could be the defining foreign policy moment of the presidency (unless something kicks up in North Korea while we're not looking). Really hard to get a read on his response. My gut says he won't "let fly" with the bombers - but that he is also working very hard to try to diffuse this thing without needing to wage war. Time will tell.

http://bethsaidafigtree.wordpress.com/

"The hawks in Israel and the US - including our current Secretary of State as I recall - attempted to escalate that war into a larger one"

OMG!!!!! Someone commenting at TWN actually knows there is a Secretary Of State!!!!

Hallelujah, there IS a Hillary!!!!

"The approach, it would appear, is to extend a hand covered in feces, and then protest, "This reprobate won't shake my hand."

Bingo.

Do ya think thats why these tanked thinkers in the think tanks don't wanna utter Hillary's name????

It is good to see someone like drew cleansing the malignity that has been poured by nipple-fed intellectuals and uninformed people upon their bete noire General Lemay who in fact was a savvy and courageous general and who proved his mettle in WWII by being himself in front of his squadrons flying over Germany. Also, he was correct in his assessment in regards to Vietnam that one cannot fight a war with political restrictions, and one should not go to war armed with HALF MEASURES.

POA and Pahalvan..

Here's something for you.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/clinton-mobilizes-jewish-groups-to-support-gadget-geek-imprisoned-in-cuba.html

"I assume Israel's main aim in this business is to take out Hizbollah and Hamas, which they are eager to do for its own sake" (Dan Kervick)

That's a very bad assumption, Dan. You'd do better to reread Jeff Goldberg's article and take the Israelis at face value. Hamas and Hizbullah are not, in themselves, existential threats; Iran is:

"In a speech in June, Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, explained Middle East history this way: “Sixty years ago, by means of an artificial and false pretext, and by fabricating information and inventing stories, they gathered the filthiest, most criminal people, who only appear to be human, from all corners of the world. They organized and armed them, and provided them with media and military backing. Thus, they occupied the Palestinian lands, and displaced the Palestinian people.” The “invented story” is, of course, the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad’s efforts to deny the historical truth of the Holocaust have the endorsement of high officialdom: the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said in 2005, “The words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust and on Israel are not personal opinion, nor isolated statements, but they express the view of the government.”

It doesn't matter if you personally don't believe that Ahmadinejad is talking this way to prepare the Iranians and the whole world for the day when he will attempt to wipe out all the Jews in Israel. What matters is that the Israelis do believe it.

"Unless Jews leave Jerusalem and the control of the Noble Sanctuary is returned to Muslims, the war will not end."

Actually, the Muslim Waqf has always retained control of the Haram al Sharif. They repaid Israel's generosity by excavating the insides of the Temple Mount with bulldozers, as if it were a garbage dump and not the most precious unexamined archeological site on the planet. But I digress.

"The 3rd holiest site in Islam does not belong to the Palestinians to dispose of as they wish."

It takes a whole lotta nerve to demand that somebody else vacate your 3rd holiest site, when the site is his 1st holiest site.

But that's par for the course for Islam: demand utmost respect from other faiths, and treat them with contempt in return.

What I have never quite understood is why Leftists who are militant atheists in their own countries should sign up for the program.

Iran isn't Obama's Cuban Missile Crisis! Its his Munich!!!!

I like the list Dan:

-- DAN: "[8.] I'll assume that Obama sincerely doesn't want this to happen. He has attempted to appease the Israelis with his sanctions regime, and is possibly hoping that he can use those sanctions to run out the clock for at least another year or two,..."

However, what's the End Game...? I just hope he's thought of one that doesn't include having to payback his warmonger backers that got him into politics in the first place. Coz they appear to be pushing pretty hard for him to pay up.

-- OBAMA: "...My closeness to the Jewish American community was probably what propelled me to the U.S. Senate..." [Considering his audience -- I believe his message could be interpreted in more than one way.]

LINK: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/interview-president-yonit-levi-israeli-tv

-- "In 2003, Forward reported on how he [Obama] had 'been courting the pro-Israel constituency.' He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967)"..."

LINK: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/obamas-chinatown.html#more-23724

Bush was able to run out the clock the second time around because he was a lame duck President, and from all appearances wanting a quick and 'quiet' exit [back to clearing his bush in Crawford?] -- Obama hasn't got that luxury.

-- DAN: "...and then hope that Israeli electoral politics take care of his problem with the Israeli hardliners and militants. But what contingency plans does Obama have in place for preventing escalation in the event of an Israeli strike, and for bringing the hostilities to a close as rapidly as possible? Will he find a way to run events, or will they run him?

Oh, I would love to hear if there are any 'serious' minded optimists out there that can see some positive changes on the horizon with regard to 'Israeli electoral politics'? At the moment I know of none. Plus, I think the Israeli's and their American Jewish friends are quite chuffed at the strangle-hold they have on our 'United States electoral politics'.

-- DAN: 9. The US cannot win a war against Iran - and the others who would join it on Iran's side - with its current force levels..."

No, but the crazies were able to get rid of Fallan, I just hope there are enough patriots for a revolt to stop a third round of serious war planning.

-- Mullen Wary of Israeli Attack on Iran
by Ray McGovern -- 3/7/10

"...I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive."..."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/07-1

SIBEL EDMONDS: "Obama Appoints a Not-Too-Long-Ago-Hatched Neocon Larva
Matthew Bryza: Azerbaijan Ambassadorship & a Tangled Web of Conflicts [7/27/2010]
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2010/07/27/obama-appoints-a-not-too-long-ago-hatched-neocon-larva/

As well as choosing our SOS (?) who has the diplomatic skills and subtlety of a brick -- I really do wonder what his endgame is?

Hillary's Enemies List (by Philip Giraldi)

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/08/11/hillary%e2%80%99s-enemies-list/

A Forward Strategy for America
2010

"We cannot tolerate the survival of a political system (Read Islamofascism) which has both the increasing capacity and the inexorable desire to destroy us. We have no other choice but to adopt the strategy of Cato: Delenda est Carthago."

Raymond Aron

"It doesn't matter if you personally don't believe that Ahmadinejad is talking this way to prepare the Iranians and the whole world for the day when he will attempt to wipe out all the Jews in Israel. What matters is that the Israelis do believe it."

Prepare the world? What in heaven's name does that mean? Do you think the world now considers itself "prepared" to wipe out the Jews? Do you think even Achmadinejad thinks the world is now "prepared" for that?

But I suppose, however, that the world should consider itself to have been put on notice by Israel. Israel is so small that they will regard any country that talks smack about them as not just a threat, but an existential threat.

You don't even have to have the capacity to destroy Israelis to enter this grave roster of existential threats. Thus the Israelis even regard Hamas as, not just a threat, but an existential threat. They are an existential threat because they continue to engage in the speech crime of "denying Israel's right to exist", while at the same time being utterly incapable of doing anything about it.

Sometimes it seems like the Israelis measure their security environment not by gauging how potent their adversaries are, but by how insulting they are. There is a whole Israeli kvetching industry that churns out endless harvests of being offended.

"The obvious question is why - ... - Israel
doesn't deliver on an Arab-Israel peace deal that
gives Palestinians a state and normalizes Israeli
relations with 57 other Arab and Muslim-dominant
nations."

Because a peace deal with the PA won't do that.
Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas want all of Israel.
They'll simply use a West Bank state to build up
weapons and launch a new war when they think they
are ready.

As long as this potential for war exists, Israel
cannot cede sovereignty over the West Bank to the
weak PA, to be turned over to Hamas.

The deeper puzzle is why Russia, which exports
more oil than Iran, agrees with China, which
imports oil. It is clearly not simple market
self-interest. These two countries could make or
break the sanctions and determine the outcome. So
we should make our deal with them.

"As long as this potential for war exists, Israel
cannot cede sovereignty over the West Bank to the
weak PA, to be turned over to Hamas." (freddy)

The potential for war always exists. This is just another excuse. Likewise, sovereignty devolving to the Palestinians on the West Bank would be scant insurance against Israeli incursions whenever they choose and for whatever reason. Leaving Gaza doesn't seem to have eliminated 'incursions'. And Israel will never trust or deal with Hamas so this formulation insures no progress will be attempted.

Iran has no enemies besides those created by its
nuclear weapons program. Saddam is long dead.
There is no attacker hanging around waiting for
Iran to get nuclear weapons so they can be
deterred. Iran's "enemies" have had 30 years to
attack. So the nukes are not defensive.

So either Iran is in the hands of paranoids or
their intent is offensive. Hard to think which one
would be worse. "Nukes for paranoids" or "Nukes
for aggressors". Take your pick.

Reading POA gives me a channel to help define my own frustrations over this current situation. Keep it up POA.

And Reading Dan K. opens for me a ray of rational light into this otherwise deadend discussion with paranoid Likud fanatics. Keep it up Dan K.

What is the greatest folly ever perpetrated on the modern world? I would submit it was the Balfour Declaration and all that has followed since. And remember, this all preceded the Holocaust.

Yoni,

I wouldn't count on Barak to stop anything

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3933979,00.html

Report: Israel planned military op following border incident

08.11.10, 09:46 /

Israel planned on launching a large-scale military operation in response to the border incident between the Israel Defense Forces and the Lebanese Army which killed Lieutenant-Colonel Dov Harari, the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reported.

According to the report, Defense Minister Ehud Barak informed French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner about the plan, which was eventually withdrawn following pressure by US, French, Egyptian and other Arab state officials. (Roee Nahmias

Freddie writes:

"Iran has no enemies besides those created by its
nuclear weapons program. "

You are kidding right?

Have you forgotten the US-UK invasion of Iran in 1941, The third use of nukes by the US to keep Russia out in 1946, the covert invasion/regime change in 1953, and all the post 1979 attempts at regime change in Iran?

How can you possibly not see the US and UK as serious enemies of Iran, an enemy created BEFORE the current enrichment program? No one likes their resources stolen and their sovereignty threatened.

In regards to the Iranian nuclear weapons program, get real. ActungAintHeBad has no nukes, and really doesn't need an actual stockpile to achieve his aims, going right up to the edge of what is permitted under the NPT (which Israel, India, and Pakistan have not signed).

He abhors (as do I) the nuclear apartheid of the US, and its continual use (31 additional uses after the 1946 Iranian incidence) of nuclear weapons to obtain economic and political privilege. As he says, "If there are good for the US, why are they not good for Iran? and if they are bad for Iran, why are they not bad for the US?"

http://www.epfwny.org/Convention/GersonChap1web.pdf

As well as the Balfour declaration being spun, no other event has as many propaganda dollars expended as the US effort to whitewash what happen in Japan, in August of 1945.

The latest effort is the Ploughshares propaganda film, COUNTDOWN TO ZERO, to which the NAF's Bill Hartung is complicit (knowingly or unknowingly)in obfuscation. ObL is shown, but NONE of his three (in my opinion, valid) grievances of why the WTC killings. Nor are any pictures of how how human's suffered, along the line of the German holocaust, shown. Not one!

Until we are able to discuss with some semblance of intellectual honesty what has occurred, and with some semblance of respect, compassion, and empathy for other points of view we are again headed to a major war, as the perpetrators hunker down in their bunkers and await the spoils. So as Obama and Robert gates "claim" to be moving to a world without nukes, the massive spending increases and construction projects to build nuclear weapons (estimated to quadruple the capacity), very visible to me, tell the opposite story.

Wars occur when propaganda successfully inures the population to inflict suffering on other human beings, dividing humanity into us and them, and people go along with massive military expenditure increases. If we are not yet already resigned to WWIII, we are awfully close.

"Remember your humanity and forget all the rest"
-- Joe Rotblat

nadine:

Please kindly refrain from chopping logic with my statements.

I have told you why the war will not end.

Make of it what you wish.

mr. clemons- israel has every right to believe that what the iranian leaders proclaim: the destruction of israel constitutes that which iran plans to do. it is sophomoric to describe the iranian leaders as pragmatic or to otherwise consider that the iranian government does not mean what they say. the foreign policy of a nation must consider the assertions of those w/ whom it is in conflict as accurate barometers of their adversary's intentions. israel cannot and should not rely upon the assertion of force by pres. obama.
israel's left w/ few practical options. it must act preemptively and consider the consequences rather than the consequences that will ensue should iran get the bomb.

one question for the united states is "how does one deal with a
madman" ?

can the u.s- israel relationship survive or will it just change?
is it changing right before our eyes?

this guy writes up a storm, Taki over at takimag dot com

" The Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never to
recover. The 1936-1939 war against Palestine was thought out
by the English and carried out by the English, but try and tell it to
old Shimon.

“The poor Palestinians have become third- or fourth-class
citizens in their own country while Jews the world over pore into
Israel. Still, Shimon whines about anti-Semitism.”

And another thing. When the Nazis began to go after the Jews in
Germany in the early thirties, Palestine became the glittering
prize. Of the nearly 500,000 Jews who lived in Palestine, most
had arrived during the late thirties. With the help of the British.
The Zionists know that, obviously professor Taki knows it, but try
and get some wild-eyed settler to believe it.

Once the film Exodus was made, with Peter Lawford playing an
anti-Semitic English officer, the game was up. Never mind Lord
Moyne’s assassination, never mind Deir Yassin, Menahem
Begin’s chef d’oeuvre, the Brits have been painted as anti-
Semites ever since. In the meantime, the poor Palestinians have
become third- or fourth-class citizens in their own country
while Jews the world over pore into Israel. Still, Shimon whines
about anti-Semitism.

And he whinges about Gaza being called an open prison. Mind
you, I’d take Ford anytime before Gaza. At Ford you can have
medical help, water and a good night’s sleep. Not in Gaza.

B’Tselem is an Israeli human rights organization which
courageously points out the outrages perpetrated daily by
(mostly) American zealot settlers against local Palestinians.

The latter live wretched lives as water and other basic human
needs are denied them by the settlers. Hebron is a verdant place
where the settlers have decided to drive out the Palestinians
through hardship. The settlers have water piped in while the
Palestinians collect rainwater.

The settlers plant trees and gardens, the Palestinians don’t have
enough water to drink while they tend their sheep and camels.
Meanwhile the settlements continue to grow.

And it gets worse. An even larger share of the Israeli army’s
officer corps now comes from the Orthodox or settler group.
These are people who see the Palestinians as subhuman,
however unpleasant the word may sound to a Jew.

Avigdor Liberman, the foreign minister, is a prime example. A
Russian thug with blood on his hands he would like to see the
last Palestinian driven across the Jordan River, and the 43 year
occupation become permanent.

Well, for some strange reason I don’t think old Shimon will be
visiting me on Bushido. I’m sure my old Etonian accent has
painted me as an anti-Semite. Too bad. Israel had a chance once
upon a time to be a legitimate democracy, unlike the rest of the
Arab countries surrounding it. It failed miserably because of its
mindset. And that of rich American Jews who encourage
unaccepable and brutal behaviour against innocents. Professor
Taki is angry as hell and will not take it any more. "

http://www.takimag.com/index.php/blogs/article/shimon_peres
_can_say_what_he_will_but_brits_love_jews

"nadine: Please kindly refrain from chopping logic with my statements."

Observer, my apologies for thinking that your statements had anything to do with logic.

"'It doesn't matter if you personally don't believe that Ahmadinejad is talking this way to prepare the Iranians and the whole world for the day when he will attempt to wipe out all the Jews in Israel. What matters is that the Israelis do believe it.'

Prepare the world? What in heaven's name does that mean? Do you think the world now considers itself "prepared" to wipe out the Jews? Do you think even Achmadinejad thinks the world is now "prepared" for that?" (Dan Kervick)

It means that by a prolonged campaign of demonization against "humanity's worst criminals," the world is prepared to say, "The Israelis had it coming" (you certain sound well prepared to say that) and not lift a finger to stop it. This is what Hitler did all during the 30s to prepare the ground for the deportation and slaughter of the Jews and the world did not lift a finger to stop him.

I am absolutely positive that Ahmadinejad thinks the world is now prepared to see him finish what Hitler started, and applaud.

"this guy writes up a storm, Taki over at takimag dot com

"The Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never to
recover. The 1936-1939 war against Palestine was thought out
by the English and carried out by the English, but try and tell it to
old Shimon." (samuelburke)

Another "narrative" writer of fiction.

Let us all pity the helplessness of the Arab victims of the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt.

This is the paradigm of Arab politics in the long Israeli-Arab conflict (the Arab Revolt took place long before anybody even claimed there was such a people as "Palestinians"): Turn to banditry and terrorism as your first resort: refuse all efforts at mediation or compromise (like the Peel Commission of 1937); start a war; lose the war; whine about what a helpless victim you are; nurse grudges against the other parties, the criminals who are 100% responsible for everything you suffer. You alone are innocent as the new-born babe.

All I can say about this civilizational self-pity and paranoia is that it seems to be catching.

"It means that by a prolonged campaign of demonization against "humanity's worst criminals," the world is prepared to say, "The Israelis had it coming""

Actually, Nadine, its getting pretty pathetic seeing you, day in and day out, do what you accuse others of. Whenever an Israeli attrocity is outlined here, your argument is ALWAYS "the Palestinians had it coming".

As jdeldll recently noted, you're a fuckin' ghoul. To bad more Jews on here don't distance themselves from your venomous prattle.

Meantime, Der Spiegel reports that the Turks are attacking the PKK with chemical weapons. Let's all wait for the International Human Rights Purist Brigades to swing into action, shall we?

"'Turks hit PKK with chemical weapons'
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
08/12/2010 21:41

Report: German newspaper says photos of dead Kurds confirm use.

BERLIN – German politicians called on Thursday for an international investigation into the reported use of chemical weapons by the Turkish military. The weapons were used against members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), according to the online edition of the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel.

“Turkey needs to urgently look into these accusations,” said Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee in the Bundestag and a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party.

Polenz recommended an international investigation to examine the deaths of eight Kurdish activists from the PKK. Claudia Roth, co-chair of the German Green party, echoed Polenz’s criticisms, seconding his call for an investigation."
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=184612

Warmongers all of you.

It is so distressing to hear all the saber rattling when there's so much that diplomacy can do to diffuse this tension. Since 2003 the Iranians have signaled they want to talk...some would say even well before that year, and be considered a major player in the region but we seem to not be interested at all in talking but rather intent on war. The fact that the call for war is being led by someone as discredited as Goldberg is even more unfortunate. When it comes to the Middle East, America has just thrown reason out of the window and resorted to ridding itself of common annoyances with sledge hammers.

nadine nothing gives me more pleasure than watching the
wheels come off your zionist israeli myth wagon.

what israel is doing to the palestinians is a crime of monstrous
proportions and when you add to it all the complicity by the
major american press outlets who publish everything the israeli
govt wishes without question or investigation, one truly has on
their hands an abuse against a helpless population unrivaled in
modern times.

"When Palestinian Arabs claimed a national identity, the people
Shimon Peres thinks are anti-Semitic turned very brutal. Against
them. They brought in more troops than they had in the entire
Indian continent, and along with Zionist terrorists made
mincemeat out of the Palestinians. From 1936—the miracle year
that saw the birth of professor Taki—until the outbreak of the
war in 1940, more than 5000 Arabs were killed by the anti-
Semitic Brits fighting along with their Zionist buddies. Whole
villages were destroyed as were political and economic systems.
The anti-Semite Brits knew what they were doing. The
Palestinian social fabric was ripped asunder, never to recover.
The 1936-1939 war against Palestine was thought out by the
English and carried out by the English, but try and tell it to old
Shimon.
“The poor Palestinians have become third- or fourth-class
citizens in their own country while Jews the world over pore into
Israel. Still, Shimon whines about anti-Semitism.”

And another thing. When the Nazis began to go after the Jews in
Germany in the early thirties, Palestine became the glittering
prize. Of the nearly 500,000 Jews who lived in Palestine, most
had arrived during the late thirties. With the help of the British.
The Zionists know that, obviously professor Taki knows it, but try
and get some wild-eyed settler to believe it."

http://www.takimag.com/index.php/blogs/article/shimon_peres
_can_say_what_he_will_but_brits_love_jews

you gotta love Philip Weiss on this one...he is all over the issue
like lox on a bagel.

we get it nadine, the system has been gamed and your side has
figured out how to get the americans to send their young
soldiers to die in the dessert for israel. we do not wish for this
to continnue...the arabs are your enemies not ours.

Walt, Karon and Leveretts say ‘alarmist’ Goldberg Iran piece
promotes Israeli objectives
by PHILIP WEISS on AUGUST 13, 2010 ·

"I still haven't read the Jeff Goldberg piece in the Atlantic (I need
time and space to do the St. Vitus dance that will inevitably
follow) but cooler heads have, Tony Karon, and Stephen Walt at
Foreign Policy and Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett also at Foreign
Policy have; and all these writers concur that the Goldberg is an
argument for war and that it's a war with a strong Israel interest.
I find it amazing that such an Israelcentric argument can be put
forward in establishment debate after a, Goldberg helped lead us
into the Iraq war on a dubious basis without suffering much
diminution of influence, and b, Goldberg himself admitted last
year on Israeli television that when it came to Iran, Israeli
interests and U.S. interests diverge, and he would be torn. Well,
not that torn!

Here are excerpts from the three writers emphasizing the
Israelcentric aspect of Goldberg's argument. Karon says that
"former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg" wrote an "alarmist screed"
at the behest of his Israeli sources:

why call in Goldberg? Well, quite simply, because Goldberg is
one of the most influential opinion-makers among hawkish
Israel backers in the Democratic Party camp. Such are his pro-
Israel hawk credentials that if Goldberg can be convinced,
there’s a chance you can convince the likes of Lester Crown. Not
that Rahm succeeded, of course; that’s why Goldberg is pushing
the line that Israel is going to do something crazy early next
year.

Walt also says the piece serves an "alarmist" agenda:

a central purpose of this article is to mainstream the idea that an
attack on Iran is likely to happen and savvy people-in-the-know
should start getting accustomed to the idea. In other words, a
preemptive strike on Iran should be seen not as a remote or far-
fetched possibility, but rather as something that is just
"business-as-usual" in the Middle East strategic environment. If
you talk about going to war often enough and for long enough,
people get used to the idea and some will even begin to think if
it is bound to happen sooner or later, than "'twere better to be
done quickly." In an inside-the-Beltway culture where being
"tough" is especially prized, it is easy for those who oppose
"decisive" action to get worn down and marginalized. If war with
Iran comes to be seen as a "default" condition, then it will be
increasingly difficult for cooler heads (including President Obama
himself) to say no.

You'll recall that a similar process of "mainstreaming" occurred
over Iraq: What at first seemed like the far-fetched dream of a
handful of out-of-power neoconservatives in 1998 had become
a serious option by 2001. By 2003, aided in no small part by the
efforts of journalists such as Goldberg, the idea had been
embraced by liberals and others who should have known better.

Then Walt quotes his and John Mearsheimer's book, The Israel
Lobby, to identify the sources of Goldberg's thinking:

If the United States does launch an attack, it will be doing so in
part on Israel's behalf, and the lobby will bear significant
responsibility for having pushed this dangerous policy."

Now the Leveretts. Goldberg is offering "the neoconservative
case for attacking Iran," they write here. And at FP, one of their
themes is the Israelcentricness of Goldberg's argument.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/walt-karon-and-leveretts-
say-alarmist-goldberg-iran-piece-promotes-israeli-
objectives.html

Nadine, I’ll have to leave it to others to defend the entire globe on the score of your blood libel against the world. But I can give you my own personal position on what the US’s security arrangement should be with respect to Israel.

THE DETERRENCE ARM: Nobody who refrains from the aggressive use of nuclear weapons themselves has a nuclear attack “coming” – they have not merited having their people wiped off the face of the Earth. The United States should thus offer an ironclad guarantee of massive retaliation, including the possible use of nuclear weapons, in response to nuclear aggression against Israel, whether by Iran or any other country.

THE CONVENTIONAL ARM: US security assurances against a conventional attack should be conditional on the termination of Israel’s posture of aggression. So long as Israel continues to colonize and expand into the West Bank, the US position should be that Palestinians are justified in conventional military responses to Israeli encroachments.

Should the Israelis withdraw from the occupied territories, however, and establish a settled border based on the pre-1967 line – whether unilaterally or through a negotiated settlement – the US should then offer Israel an ironclad security guarantee against conventional military attack from the Palestinians and their allies.

Israel’s position these days appears to be that a deterrence guarantee of massive retaliation against Iran is not viable, because the Iranians are a nation of crazy suicide bombers who will accept national incineration if they can exterminate the Jews in the process. Thus Israel argues that the US and/or Israel needs to engage in a preventive military assault against the government and nuclear industry of a country that does not have nuclear weapons, does not have the breakout capacity to build nuclear weapons, and is not mobilized for an imminent assault on the United States an Israel.

This approach to the problem, based on an outlandish interpretation of Iranian national psychology, is not warranted by the evidence; and it also runs deeply contrary to US interests in the region and the world.

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2010/08/israel-shamir-fear-not-2/

The most likely interpretation for the sabre-rattling is that Israelis plan yet another invasion of Lebanon, while hoping that Iran will be scared into immobility by the threat of an all-out war. Like all previous invasions of Lebanon, that would be a great crime and a huge mistake, but hardly an apocalyptic event.

Indeed for all appearances it is a re-run of 2006, when the predictions of American attack on Iran were also running high, but eventually Bush has got cold feet and the Israeli army was roundly defeated in the mountain valleys of South Lebanon.

If It Comes

However, if this optimistic prognosis goes the way of some weather broadcasts, and instead of a sunny day with rainy spells we get a full blown storm, the whole fabric of the Middle East will unravel. This juggernaut would be unstoppable. After Iran, Syria would fall. After Syria, Saudi Arabia. It will be the classic domino game: Iran rejoiced when Iraq fell. Saudis wish Iran to fall. Israel wants all of them to fall. This is inscribed in their Clean Break paper and its source, Oded Yinon’s paper, which they follow religiously.
If Saudis have too poor of a memory, let us remind them: A few months after 9/11, Rand Corporation analyst Laurent Murawiec briefed Richard Perle’s Defence Policy Board, calling upon the US to break up Saudi Arabia. Its oil fields should be targeted and its financial assets seized, advised this neocon.

I should add, Nadine, that all the regulars here can recall that I have previously argued that, in exchange for Israel terminating their aggression in the West Bank - and also as a means of providing additional motivation for the Israelis to terminate that aggression - the US should offer Israel the option of US statehood, which would render the strongest possible security guarantees automatic.

STEVE: "...Goldberg acknowledges that over the next twelve months, sanctions could possibly change the calculations of Iran's political leadership, or the reformist Green Movement could "temper the regime's ideological extremism," or that covert "foiling operations" could sabotage and undermine Iran's nuclear program - but that chances for success on these fronts are seen by many as slim..."

Yep seen by may as slim:

"...This recent feature in the New Yorker by Jon Lee Anderson paints a more nuanced picture. It certainly doesn’t ignore the government’s increasingly brutal crackdown on dissent but it features cries for change from those in the elite. Perhaps this is the most revealing part:

In private, supporters of the [Green] movement spend a lot of time thinking over the events of last year. They are often dispirited, even rueful. “People miscalculated,” one of my Iranian friends said. “They thought everyone in the country was like themselves, and that the rest of the country was like Tehran.” The demonstrations, in his view, had as much to do with social class as they did with politics. Mousavi’s and Karroubi’s voters in the Green Movement were largely middle or upper class. The soldiers and the Basij who attacked them were for the most part Ahmadinejad voters, drawn, like the President himself, from the less privileged majority of the city’s population, based predominately in the south of the city. The Green Movement’s ability to put significant numbers of protesters—estimates range from hundreds of thousands to three million—onto Tehran’s streets sometimes created the impression that they represented a majority in the country. “They were wrong,” my friend said. “And their leaders misunderestimated—to paraphrase your former President Bush—just how savage the regime could be.” Adopting a mocking tone of voice, he added, “ ‘What, you thought that with your vote you’d get change? That you actually had a choice?’ ” A friend of his had been detained and released after agreeing to sign a statement of repentance. “His interrogator told him, ‘This time you have no choice. You either submit or I’ll ram this stick up your ass. That’s your choice.’... ”

h/t: antonyloewenstein.com/2010/08/13/floating-towards-war-with-iran-via-israel-and-zionists/
----------------------------
STEVE: "...I'd add to this list on the U.S. ledger that China and Russia may exploit the incident and provide a back door to Iran - thus potentially breaking the back of US dominance of the world's oil and natural gas regimes. Supply of Iranian oil to Japan and Europe may be curtailed without immediate clear and easy supply offsets - thus potentially putting serious pressure on America's other alliances"

Yep, I'll also add it was AIPAC's 'malleable' tool "Mark Kirk" that pushed for the "Russian [$$$] missile system in Iran sanctions". [Kudo's given there for his election!]

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/05/23/2739269/kirk-wants-russias-s-300-in-un-sanctions

Which obviously Russia was not happy about.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2010/iran-100611-rianovosti01.htm

DAN: "...the US should offer Israel the option of US statehood, which would render the strongest possible security guarantees automatic..."

Don't you mean the option for us to become the 'United States of Israel"? -- This might seem hypobole -- but really -- with upper hand Israel appears to have over our President and Congress -- if 'we' can see balance of power changing then the Arab world at al. are likely to see it too...

the the the

Will Israel attack Iran before this nuclear plant supposedly starts next week?:

http://tinyurl.com/WillIsraelattackIranbefore

"...This recent feature in the New Yorker by Jon Lee Anderson.."

Also, what it revealed to me is that Iran has its fair share of 'low-information voters' as well as a dodgy looking election system -- just like us. And that the Iranian regime is just as skilled at twisting propaganda and fear -- just like us.

However, it still doesn't justify bombing them.

"Walt, Karon and Leveretts say ‘alarmist’ Goldberg Iran piece promotes Israeli objectives"

Claiming that anybody who argues the opposite position from yours is a treacherous foreign agent is an ancient trope, something Leverett might want to be careful about it, lest the charge fly back to him.

Jeffrey Goldberg was a corporal in the IDF, and so I assume is still a citizen of Israel. So couldn't one be accused of calling him treacherous if one suggested that he was *not* promoting Israeli objectives?

-- A campaign for war with Iran begins
If neocons can't get Obama to attack Iran, they are creating a narrative so the next Republican president will
By Trita Parsi 8/13/10
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/13/trita_parsi_jeffrey_goldberg/index.html

Thanks Steve for this excellent analysis. However I still think it's highly unlikely that the Israelis will make a move.

1. U.S. wouldn’t agree. The goal of U.S. is maximize pressure to bring Iran to the negotiating table. U.S. simply can’t afford another war.
2. Bombing Iran would severely destabilize the oil-producing region, with severe implications to the world economy. U.S. wouldn’t want to stir this caldron to a boil. Esp. in this economic climate
3. Any Israeli action would reflect on the Americans, thus Little Satan would def need the nod from the Greater Satan, whom won’t agree (1 & 2 above). Without U.S. backing, esp diplomatically, Israel is as good as toast.
4. It’s not apparent that Israelis would get transit rights from the Saudis, nor the Iraqi’s (e.g. U.S.) Saudis, with its own sizable Shiite population, certainly don’t want to overtly antagonize the Iranians. If there’s one prominent cultural trait in the gulf, it is that one always pays one’s blood debts. Same with Iraqis (even larger Shiites population. Risk of destabilization -- U.S. is trying to get out after all. Many politicians rely on Iran for support).
5. Israeli bombing route via Syrian-Turkish border? Not a legal scholar but I am sure both countries would raise a fuss about that. It’s certainly possible. But my point is not whether the Israelis *can* do it, it’s a matter of *will* they do it.
6. Lastly, Iran getting the bomb isn’t the end of the world. It is not the hegemon the Neocons ginned up to be. The Arabs will balance Iran politically. U.S. and in particular Israel’s 200-300 nuclear warheads will do so militarily. So there is indeed a fall-back position. It is my estimation that Israelis are doing this to assist the U.S. to put pressure on the Iranians to come to the negotiation table. After all, a more weighty Iran will certainly put pressure on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amongst other issues important to the Israelis, in attempt to bolster its own political standing.

David Rothkopf answers Steve Clemons in Foreign Policy:

"Steve Clemons of the Washington Note, who took the intriguing step of responding to Goldberg's detailed, must-read article before it was even published, focused on what he sees as the miscalculation of Netanyahu and others in the Israeli inner circle. In Clemons' eyes -- and he is an estimable analyst with whom I agree far more often than not -- a military strike would be misguided both because of the blowback it would trigger and because the view that the Iranians are irrational is wrong. He sees them as just the kind of calculating, self-interested actor that would respond well to the pressures of deterrence once they had a bomb and thus concludes, without actually saying it, that in the end, we can live with the Iranians having the bomb.

This is a popular view in Washington. Indeed, rhetoric aside, I believe it is the view of the president even if it is definitely not the view of all of his closest advisors. In fact, I think the Israelis are over-estimating the likelihood that in the end Obama will live up to his statements that we will do what it takes to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Having said that...

The "rational actor" view of Iran has a couple of fundamental flaws, quite apart from the legitimate argument about whether or not key members of the Iranian elite (or potential future leaders) are -- or will be capable of -- acting "irrationally" and using a nuclear weapon even if they faced a significant counter-strike as a likely outcome. (This issue of who might be potential future leaders is often overlooked or downplayed here. And while my sense is that it is quite possible we could end up with much more moderate Iranian leadership, it is also possible that we could get someone who made Ahmadinejad look statesmanlike.)

The first flaw is that the core problem associated with Iran getting the bomb is not Iran. It's that their getting the bomb moves us toward a world in which irrational, deterrent-immune actors become so much more likely to get it. This could either be due to one or more weapons falling into the hands of extreme elements in the network of extremists supported by Iran or, more likely, due to the triggering of an arms race in the region that will, necessarily, geometrically increase the likelihood that the weapon falls into the hands of a terrorist or non-state actor who literally has nothing to lose in the event of a counter-strike.

The second flaw is that even a "rational" actor in Tehran might well conclude the use of nuclear weapons against Israel, for example, was worth the risks entailed. They might, for example, note that a first-strike with even very few weapons might effectively destroy Israel, whereas any counter-strike in Iran would likely be very targeted and have comparatively limited consequences. There is no "mutual assured destruction" here because it is so unlikely anyone would respond with the intent of destroying Iran."

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/12/since_when_is_it_rational_to_bet_on_history_being_made_by_rational_men

DEBORCHGRAVE: Guns of August

http://tinyurl.com/GunsofAugust

'JINSA John' Bolton: "Israel has 8 days to hit bushehr" (Iran)

http://tinyurl.com/BoltonIsraelhas8daystohitIran

James,

After reading what Paul Craig Roberts and Chalmers Johnson say at that site, a war doesn't sound so bad. Quick death in a nuclear conflagration is preferable. Damn.