(Not, I hasten to add, all Israeli citizens, let alone all Jews. But Israelis are just as responsible for the government that speaks for them as we, alas, are for ours.) This takes the cake:
The specter of a nuclear-armed Iran has rattled Israel's self-confidence. Its politicians and generals warn of a "second Holocaust" if, as in the 1930s, the world stands by while a heavily armed nation declares war against the Jews.
Bullshit. If there's one thing we know from the Cold War, where we and the Russians had literally tens of thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other for years, it's that deterrence works. Iran's going to nuke Israel when in the next five minutes Teheran becomes a smoking crater? I don't think so. Nothing tells me the mullahs are crazy. Heck, they're less crazy than our mullahs.
Spelling out that scenario, Israeli officials have begun an unusually open campaign to muster international political and economic pressures against Iran. They warn that time is growing short and hint that they will resort to force if those pressures fail to prevent Iran's development of an atomic weapon.
Right, right. Israel does the dirty work, then we use the carriers to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. If chaos is the plan, that's exactly what we're going to get (because I sure God can't think of any other vital national interest this serves).
Israeli leaders fear that an Iranian bomb would undermine their nation's security even if Tehran never detonated it. That Israel has its own nuclear arsenal would not counteract the psychological and strategic blow, they believe.
So, we're supposed to go to war so that Israel can avoid a "psychological" blow, and the loss of some "strategic" power? WTF
? Does that cheapen the Holocaust, or what?
Israel is a nation state like any other. And Israel grasped the firebrand when they held onto the West Bank after the 1967 war--for nutball religious reasons we in this country are in no way bound to accept as forming our national interest.
And now the firebrand is burning them. But we have no interest in letting their firebrand burn us.
NOTE Sarah, I know you're going to disagree with this. But if you accept the logic of deterrence, I would argue that there's no other conclusion possible than the one I'm drawing.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
i saw that and got too mad to post on it
because i don't want to go down that path in which i say things i'll later regret. lambert speaks for me, this is bullshit and i hope that our leaders don't fall for this. now is really not the time for the US to get into another war. that's the only point that matters, lambert's important analysis aside.
Deterrence
You assume that detterence will work against Iran just like it did against the USSR, but this is not necessarily the case. The USSR never had an apocalytptic messianism which exists in Tehran. "if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights, the divine brothel in the skies." Bernard Lewis.
Now by no means is it all the mullahs that feel this way. But, a significant number of them exist. In the upcoming power struggle what happens if that side gets the control?
Nuclear detterence works in other ways also. Iran could easily expand its support of terrorists and terrorist activities knowing that it is safe from attack because it posesses nukes.
I would recommend you read the story by Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi on The New Republic a few days ago. (no matter what you think of TNR, those two are very intelligent analysts of the situation in the Middle-East).
sorry nuds, but that line of argument doesn't really work
the mullahs aren't that crazy, nor are many of them true believers. getting into an exchange of nukes kills not only the population that keeps them in power, but it destroys the resource that makes them all that money. deterrance works because in the end, the greed and lust for power of leaders is dampened, in the face of living out the rest of their lives in a mine shaft, only served by a handful when once they controlled millions.
and lewis sucks ass. go to a university department of middle eastern studies, go to several, and you'll find most academics are not at all impressed with his "expert analysis." i'm one of them.
give Nuddie a break
There are bound to be an Iranian or two who are as batshit crazy as Dick Cheney, and would nuke anyone the first chance they got.
Luckily, it takes brains and skill to build or use a nuke. The batshit crazy Iranians don't have the brains. Neither does Dick Cheney.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Western Perspective
CD, you are looking at things from a Western perspective and seem to completely ignore the "thinking" behind Islamic fundamentalism. "You love life, but we love death" is a perfect example of it. One can not apply modern political theories to an ideology that exults in death. By no means am I saying that all the Iranian mullahs think this way. But there is certainly a significant minority that does.
And I have seen plenty of university middle eastern studies departments, and for the most part they have their heads up their asses - still stuck on Said. I would take his analysis of the middle east over pretty much any middle east studies department in the US.
well, we're just going to have to disagree on that one, nuddie
i've read them both, and i'll take Said over Lewis any day. Said lived, spoke the language of, grew up in and was educated in the reality of middle eastern life. lewis is an armchair imperialist. most academics agree on that point. but let's not get bogged down in academic irrelevence. except to say: you do know Said was a...Christian, don't you?
you say that islamic fundies "love death" and not life. hmmm. that sounds familiar. are you being willfully dense, and ignoring what a great deal of the fundies in this country, christian ones, are saying about which is better? seems to me that when you've got a nation in which "left behind" is a best selling series, you really shouldn't complain about muslims who are in "love" with death. we've blogged on violent "christian" video games which grant points for killing non-christians, have you heard of that? or how about the words of any number of reactionary, hard core christian preachers, who tell congregants to die for christianity by signing up to fight in bush's war? ahem, bush has used the word "crusade" over and over again. who is more in love with death? oh, that's right- the tiny states with hardly any economic or military power, compared to ours. ahem, why don't you use our search function here at corrente, and read some of the words of our military leaders, who have publically proclaimed that "their god is real, and better" than that of muslim belief? we've got the bomb, in spades. iran and most middle eastern nations (except our friends in pakistan!) are years away from having even one.
how many muslims are suicide bombers? what is the percentage? prolly like .0000001%. now, let's compare that to the number of american fundie christians who have avocated for the destruction of muslim nations in the middle east...because it will bring forth the global slaughter of billions who are not 'the righteous.' and then there's the
jesus chainsaw massacre'passion of the christ.' that's not just loving a god who dies, that's loving watching him die horribly, slowly and painfully. there really isn't an islamic equivalent.
you've said in the past that i'm overly simplistic, that i don't appreciate the complexities of conservative thought, that i don't understand the realities of the world we face. i'm turning that back on you. i know you went to school with people who were muslim, from the middle east, who were well travelled and diverse. do you remember those people telling you they wanted to kill and die for an islamic cause? no, because you graduated and lived on past that horrible moment in diversity. not all muslims are monolithic, any more than american christians all believe that i'm going to spend eternity burning in a lake of fire because i like to lick muff.
there are crazies in iraq. some hold some power. but the bottom line is that it makes more sense for fundies, of all kinds to keep subject populations constantly and endlessly in fear and hatred of each other, instead of "pushing the button" and bringing about a final conflict. how do i know this? because i've studied religions of all kinds for a long, long time. and it's clear in the historical record: the Big One is always some time "in the near future," but it's never quite "today." that's the scam. what surprises me about you is that you can see (parts of) this in the islamic hucksters, but you won't see it in the christian, jewish, or other religions and leaders.
that's called prejudice, and if you're smart, you'll see that you can and should move beyond it. for your own sake, and that of your intellect.
Iran with nukes is bad news
So is Pakistan with nukes, which is already a reality.
Bush's invasion of Iraq may one day prove the world's most devastating example of the boy who cried wolf.
Whatever hope we once had of leading an international coalition that would keep Iran nuke-free was lost the day The Decider decided to bomb the shit out of the Baghdad Pottery Barn.
The simple fact is, we no longer have the leverage to do it diplomatically, and any unilateral action we take will almost certainly cost us -- and Israel -- dearly.
www.vastleft.com