Well, after reading through ten pages of information about the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, I come to Ronen Bergman’s conclusion:
After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. Perhaps in the small and ever-diminishing window that is left, the United States will choose to intervene after all, but here, from the Israeli perspective, there is not much hope for that. Instead there is that peculiar Israeli mixture of fear — rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive — and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.
I can only hope that Mr. Bergman is wrong. Even though his article is long and fairly comprehensive, it ignores many questions. It’s not that the answers aren’t available, but they aren’t even asked. Why, for example, is Israel so much more fearful of an Iranian nuclear weapon than a Pakistani one?
Here’s another one. Since most Iranians support the effort to get a nuclear weapon, why do the Israelis act like regime change will solve the problem?
I spend most of my time with progressives, so I’m familiar with some of the standard arguments against messing with Iran over their nuclear ambitions. Some of these arguments are pretty compelling, even if they ultimately fail. It’s pretty tough to listen to Israelis lecture the international community about their responsibility to prevent Iran from going nuclear when Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has an undeclared nuclear arsenal not subject to inspection by the IAEA. Adults can live with some double standards, but the lack of self-awareness on this score can be pretty appalling. For example:
In our conversation on Jan. 18, [Moshe] Ya’alon, the deputy prime minister, was sharp in his criticism of the international community’s stance on Iran. “These are critical hours on the question of which way the international community will take the policy,” he said. “The West must stand united and resolute, and what is happening so far is not enough. The Iranian regime must be placed under pressure and isolated. Sanctions that bite must be imposed against it, something that has not happened as yet, and a credible military option should be on the table as a last resort. In order to avoid it, the sanctions must be stepped up.”
I will have more to say about this later, but what I take out of this article is that the leaders in Israel have come very close to losing their minds. I support an international effort to deny Iran nuclear weapons. But that is based on the principles of nuclear nonproliferation. Israel isn’t a party to the international treaty and has no credibility on the issue. And they can’t destroy Iran’s program anyway.
I really don’t have any doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and I think the world should be united in opposing their efforts. But the world should also be united in pushing for all nuclear powers to reduce or eliminate their nuclear arsenals. And that includes Israel.
And that includes the United States.
“I support an international effort to deny Iran nuclear weapons. But that is based on the principles of nuclear nonproliferation.”
Ditto.
Also, I do not support the inclusion of military attack as a part of that “international effort.”
Either the Israelis have some intelligence about Iranian intentions that would genuinely surprise me, or their entire political class has gone completely bonkers.
“Either the Israelis have some intelligence about Iranian intentions that would genuinely surprise me, or their entire political class has gone completely bonkers.”
Given that half of our own political class has gone completely bonkers, I’d go with the latter.
Why, for example, is Israel so much more fearful of an Iranian nuclear weapon than a Pakistani one?
Because an Iranian nuclear weapon threatens Saudi influence in the Gulf, and will then threaten Israel’s position with its BFF.
why do the Israelis act like regime change will solve the problem?
To buy time for another US despot to get into power who is willing do US/Israeli/Saudi bidding. Why else? Well, another reason I can think of is because Israel’s politicians are far-right wingers who don’t care and act out of desperation.
Personally, I think the end is near for the Zionist Experiment; at the very least in its current form. In a way, them acting like this makes sense, especially because they’ve been driven so far to the right by their own religious crazies. I read in I think a NYT article not too long ago that demographics are going to kill the state economically because the far-right religious men don’t work, drain welfare, and read the Torah/go to Temple all day. Leading to poverty and crime.
Where are the women’s rights groups in the west calling for an invasion of Israel like they did with Afghanistan?
Israel would be willing to accept a significant counterstrike – it’s right there in the article that they expect they’d take one – for Saudi Arabia?
Not buying it.
No, not for Saudi Arabia per se. For themselves. Saudi Arabia is the only thing protecting Israel from accomplishing its goals of full-out ethnic cleansing and Greater Israel at this point now that Egypt has fallen. Syria might be next, and then all you got is King Playstation and Queen YouTube to the south.
Suppose it would have been more fitting to say “east” rather than south.
Saudi Arabia is the only thing protecting Israel from accomplishing its goals of full-out ethnic cleansing and Greater Israel at this point now that Egypt has fallen.
Is this supposed to be an argument why the Israeli leadership would want to protect Saudi Arabia, and be willing to take a hit to do so?
Because it totally isn’t. The Israeli leadership doesn’t view the Greater Israel project as something to be protected from.
It’s insane. and if it heats up a bit more, I wonder what those emigration numbers will look like. A lot of Israelis have other options. would you want to be there when the prime minister pokes the biggest snake in the bag with a sharp stick?
There is no doubt that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons strategy; most countries with reactors are. But that is an entirely different thing from pursuing nuclear weapons themselves. Having the capability to build a nuclear weapon on short notice is allowable under the NPT. Helping other nations gain this capability is not. And actively building a weapon is not. This is the distinction that causes a difference of opinion between US analysts and IAEA analysts. What the IAEA has criticized Iran for is highly nuanced.
Why does it make strategic sense for Iran to pursue the immediate development of a weapon now? Just because they can is a possible answer; I suspect that’s what drove North Korea. Joining the “nuclear country club”.
Nuclear weapons are most effective when you don’t have to use them. Even more effective if you never build them. Ambiguity is a weapon.
Without extensive candid conversations with the Iranian leaderhship, we cannot guage their intentions. Fortunately, the framework for those conversations has been inching forward. Even as the US and European Union have imposed economic sanctions.
It seems to me that what we are seeing in Israel is a political struggle over foreign policy in which Iran policy is the context of the disagreement. The political leadership are bellicose but hedging; the reports from inside the IDF and Mossad are that the military and intelligence want no part of an attack on Iran because of its consequences.
That is another form of using ambiguity as a weapon. The political leadership in Israel (meaning Netanyahu and the religious parties) is intent on only one thing it seems: integration of the West Bank into “Greater Israel”. And the cleansing of Palestinians from those occupied territories. That is not losing one’s mind; it is achieving one’s original goals.
The US could reduce tensions in the Middle East by reining in its “most important ally”. (Britain, you’ve lost that “special relationship”.) And seating Palestine in the UN.
Iran is a side issue that Israel is likely using to manipulate US policy in order to maintain the tension that brings in the foreign aid that props up the Netanyahu government.
US policy is likely more complicated than it seems. To have a stable NPT regime, you want to constrain Iran’s nuclear options to those consistent with the NPT. You want to do this because if you don’t, Saudi Arabia is going to want its own nuclear capability. The US/Europe alliance, Russia, and China have been pretty successful at preserving the NPT regime by negotiating protectorates under their respective nuclear umbrellas. And they have been able to bring potential breakout nations within their protectorates. This has been the focus of Chinese diplomacy and friendship with North Korea. And the influence on calming tensions between India and Pakistan. Russia seems to be pursuing a policy of incorporating Iran into its sphere in some relationship that reduces the security reasons for Iran to have a nuclear capability. Russia’s relationship to Iran is very much like China’s relationship to North Korea. But Russia, as a supplier of technology, has a closer relationship with Iran than China does with North Korea.
But the main impetus for war with Iran is coming not from Israel but from US Republicans and neo-cons, who want to get the “shaping of the Middle East” project going again. As justification for an ever expensive military.
Why does it make strategic sense for Iran to pursue the immediate development of a weapon now?
Because by the time a George Bush type wins the American presidential elections and/or a Saddam Hussein type launches a coup in a neighboring country, it’s too late to get started on one?
I think it makes all kinds of sense for Iran to want a nuclear deterrent.
It makes sense for Iran to want a nuclear deterrent. That’s where we agree.
But that logic does not dictate immediate development of a nuclear weapon because most countries are smart enough to know that their acquisition of a nuclear weapon proliferates quickly to the major powers in their area having one.
In Iran’s situation, that means Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons; Turkey, which is under the NATO nuclear umbrella but has no nuclear weapons of its own; Iraq, which under Saddam Hussein abandoned its nuclear program; Saudi Arabia, which does not have a nuclear program; Afghanistan, which does not have a nuclear program and on an on. There are a lot of potential competing powers in Iran’s neighborhood.
Plus Iran has signed the nonproliferation treaty. Any weapons technology will have to be homegrown spinoffs of the civilian nuclear industry. That is not easy to do and even the CIA publicly thinks Iran is years away from a weapon.
So the ideal strategy for Iran is to have a nuclear deterrent without yet having a nuclear weapon. The presence of refineable uranium in a country and a civilian nuclear power industry means that Iran can develop a weapon at a time of its choosing. And be faithful to the NPT in the meantime.
The most effective way to deter Iran for developing a weapon sooner instead of later is for the US and Russia to continue the accelerate their build-down of nuclear weapons under the very accurate logic that nuclear weapons really do not establish security but create the basis for an arms race. (The same is true of anti-ballistic missile systems and drones by the way.) And for the United States to rein in Israeli aggressiveness; that $3 billion a year should not be unconditional, and under austerity it could be cut or ended entirely.
My sense is that the Obama administration knows this, but the domestic politics is so hot that the President has been maneuvering like crazy to avoid war. That means walking back the fears being drummed up by the US rightwing as well as Iran’s fears of US aggression. As long as Iran had the illusion that it could isolate the US from Europe, Russia, and China it could pull our string to act aggressive. Ahmedinejad needs the US as an enemy as much as Newt Gingrich need Iran as an enemy; it’s what separates the both of them from an Arab Spring movement.
The endgame for diplomacy in this situation is re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and Iran. Iran is skittish about this because embassies come equipped with CIA stations; the US is skittish about this because embassy staff were held hostage in 1979-1980 and they are not sure that Iran has forgone using this tactic again. So President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have a huge job to walk this back even as domestic politics in the US and Iran are pushing towards conflict. Which explains the President’s and Sec. Clinton’s swaggering speech publicly, especially domestically.
I am hoping that with the help of the NATO nations, Russia, and China they can succeed. For exactly the reason that Gingrich and Ahmedinejad need each other just like Bush and bin Laden did.
And I would watch out for backchannel communication between Republican operatives and the Iranian government to obstruct Obama’s progress. We seen that before.
But that logic does not dictate immediate development of a nuclear weapon because most countries are smart enough to know that their acquisition of a nuclear weapon proliferates quickly to the major powers in their area having one.
Does not follow. As the Cold War demonstrated, one’s nuclear deterrent isn’t eroded by the other side also having nukes.
Now, your argument makes sense if the question was why Iran wanted a nuke as a means of dominating its region, but that’s a very different question from deterrence.
So the ideal strategy for Iran is to have a nuclear deterrent without yet having a nuclear weapon.
There’s no such thing. The possibility of having a nuke in a few years doesn’t stop invasions and attacks; if anything, it encourages them.
There are strategies that provide nuclear deterrence without having a nuclear weapon in hand. There are 25 European nations and not a few Asian nations that implement one of them. They depend on an alliance that includes one or more nuclear powers to provide their nuclear deterrence. Prior to the Iranian revolution, Iran benefited from its alliance with the US in such a way. After the Iranian revolution, Iran benefited from the proximity of the Soviet Union and the fact that there were few other nuclear nations in the vicinity. When India and Pakistan developed their own nuclear weapons, Iran depended on the presence of the Soviet Union and its diplomacy with both India and Pakistan.
When Iran started to think about having its own nuclear capability seems to be during the Iran-Iraq War when both the United States and the Soviet Union were diplomatically playing for influence with both countries. That apparently became a search for a nuclear capability with the fall of the Soviet Union and the US-coalition attacks on Iraq. And no doubt there was an increase in discussions after Bush’s astounding Axis of Evil SOTU.
Israel has a nuclear deterrent strategy. Do they for sure have a nuclear weapon? Maybe, maybe not. They’ve never tested one, as India and Pakistan have. They have not signed the NPT either, a rather cheap way of introducing that ambiguity. They also have negotiated a security agreement with the US, which functions as a nuclear umbrella. But bet your shekels that Israel has a nuclear capability that it could develop into a weapon on short notice. But also notice that geopolitically, Israel has the practical problem of being too close to most its potential nuclear targets.
A lot of countries have noticed that and decided to adopt a nuclear deterrent strategy that does not involved developing weapons themselves. They either depend on diplomacy to have no enemies or seek the shelter of other countries’ nukes. For Iran, the question is which current nuclear powers will guarantee their security from nuclear attack. The likely ones are Russia and China. So watch how this plays out.
There are strategies that provide nuclear deterrence without having a nuclear weapon in hand. There are 25 European nations and not a few Asian nations that implement one of them. They depend on an alliance that includes one or more nuclear powers to provide their nuclear deterrence.
First, they are still basing their deterrence on having an existing nuclear retaliation capability, not the possibility of one in the future.
Second, that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about Iran having its own nuclear deterrent. It’s their program, and nobody else is stepping up to put them under an umbrella.
A lot of countries have noticed that and decided to adopt a nuclear deterrent strategy that does not involved developing weapons themselves. They either depend on diplomacy to have no enemies or seek the shelter of other countries’ nukes.
But we’re talking about a situation in which Iran is developing its own nuclear capability.
Given that it comes from what is to all appearances a partisan blog, and since I don’t see these points being made anywhere else, I’m reluctant to ask whether there’s any accuracy in this piece, but there are a couple of potentially compelling points:
The article makes the argument that Iran doesn’t even need nuclear weapons to create a huge disaster in Israel, and it would be a bad bet that they wouldn’t retaliate to any strikes by doing just that. That would mean that a preemptive strike would have to be overwhelming in order to head off the possibility of return fire.
Anyway, could be total garbage, but I’ve been wondering about it since reading it last week or so.
My sense is that the logic of Iran being able to hurt Israel if it unleashed its current capabilities in response to Israeli aggression is correct.
I think the reading of US, Israeli, and Iranian intentions is superficial. Because intentions depend on the character of the leadership of the country, I do not think that either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff seek to attack Iran at all. They understand that there are unpredictable consequences to that serious action.
Also, there are reports that the IDF and Mossad are not keen on a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Which leaves the Israeli leadership spewing inflammatory rhetoric (Netanyahu has walked some back) and essentially trying to bully their policy through.
It is a dicey situation, but the US press is making too much of it. I remember when Seymour Hersh was saying that his national security sources were saying that President Bush was going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Obama is more cautious than Bush was.
This will be money in the bank for speculators who are betting long on oil futures.
Who? What? I’m merely Don Durito de la Lacandona, beetle and knight errant.
Ah. Well, I was reading Arthur Silber and I thought you were the same Don Durito over there. Guess I was wrong.
There once was a nation named Israel
Who feared that their neighbor was fisrael
So to disrupt that plan
They bomb bomb bomb’d Iran
And now everybody is misrael.
OK, fine, you find words that rhyme with Israel.
Mistaken identity aside, it’s traditionally been considered poor netiquette to out another blogger or message board user who posts pseudonymously. That was the reason for the donut (that, and I was hoping those who moderate here would have the good sense to see said breach of netiquette and nuke the thread altogether). I write under an assumed name, as do you, for a reason. I would hope that would be respected.
Well he had you listed under that name, so I didn’t assume it was pseudonymous. My fault.
“I really don’t have any doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons “
Why? It seems to me completely plausible they’re developing nuclear power for civilian use, as they claim.
ricktaylor,
I concur.
And I believe the US did start the Iranian nuclear program back in the late fifties early sixties.
.
Going to war is a political decision …
IraqIran. The IAEA report is inconclusive. The threat of an Iranian assassination is world news, a Mossad assassination is what we have learned to accept. Speaking of double standards inBushObama foreign policy"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.".
Israel can’t attack Iran by conventional means without US permission to enter air space over Iraq. Israeli planes would have to circumvent Iraq via Saudi Arabia and refuel its jets. An Israeli strike will make the US complicit in the eyes of the world anyway. Only US bombers have the capacity for an effective strike on the bunkers with nuclear facilities. Israel cannot withstand the political repercussions, the US in its arrogance and might can. Therefore the agreement between Netanyahu and Obama is first sanctions and as last resort an US strike on Iran.
Hopefully this is part of a overall Obama security policy for the greater Middle-East and with a resolve for peace with the Palestinians.
Netanyahu has removed all top level persons in the intelligence units and armed forces with doubts or opposing views. He has the narcissism of a leader with imperialistic goals of an Eretz Israel. A most dangerous person and an habitual liar .
Sarkozy recognizes those traits and warns Netanyahu for going alone and repudiates the lack of resolve of the Quartet on the Palestinian peace process.
The Israeli/Zionist politici are all involved to frame the Iran issue on the world stage, especially in the US. After meeting with Consul General Opher Aviran, the Jewish zealot Adler wrote his article in the Atlanta Jewish Times with the proposal for Netanyahu to keep the assassination of the US President Barack Obama on the table. Speaking of creating the atmosphere of hatred.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Isn’t this argument a tad outdated?
We don’t control Iraqi airspace anymore.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."agree that the Iranians are not pursuing weapons.
Fortunately (silver lining?), Europe is on the brink of pulling a shitload of CDS triggers on Greece, because the “Troika” don’t know whether to shit or wind their watches, which is one reason they are deferring sanctions until July. A twenty dollar rise in oil puts everyone in the shitter right now. They’ve agreed to a “wait and see” set of sanctions.
I have little doubt that the plan is to eventually attack Iran, but from Obama’s pov, it would be better if the Israelis did not accidentally hot-foot us quite just yet. Hence, Ehud’s agreement with Leon. The Bernank needs additional QEs to get the Prez to next election, or “Hello, Newt Romney?” Good gawd, nobody, and I mean nobody wants that (although the banks sure seem to “like” Romney, Obama will do just fine; the establishment will torpedo Newt, just after he makes Romney sufficiently unelectable; i.e., Obama in 2013 looks like a shoo-in after QE5).
I’m guessing American politics (via the economy) is ruling the roost here. They literally cannot afford to fuck-up our “fragile” recovery, because that’d be curtains all around, wouldn’t it. That’s not a question.
Any discussion of attacking Iran should always be prefaced by some actual history, including recent history, which clarifies a lot. The ever-receding Grand Chessboard is a vanishing horizon, but I’m sure some aggressive Hail Mary will be employed as a self-inflicted coup de gras. That goes without saying.
Also, I appreciate the fact that you did not quote the NYT on IAEA reports, because NYT have discredited themselves too many times to count, and on some very, very large issues surrounding regime change in general, and specifically on the last IAEA report; and the new head of the IAEA is a dubious pawn whose reports reek of unsubstantiated bullshit.
The truth is, energy = gdp; and we will do a lot more damage to everyone, including ourselves, before this is over. We’ve only just begun to live life in a whole new way. You start out walking and learn to run. And, yes, we’ve just begun.
By Obama’s second year of his second term, oil production will begin declining by several percent per year. If he plays his fracking cards right, he could conceivably survive his entire second term, but I don’t see how long the Bernank can keep printing money into the various black holes too beyond Obama’s re-election.
So, war it is.
You were quoting NYT on this bullshit.
Booman, you suck cattle balls bigger than the sun.
That is all, and goodbye, because I <strike>like</strike> love “goodbyes.”
Your whole “return to Clinton” mirage is a total fucking mirage. Do you read blogs? But that’s what you want. Confess, sinner!
We are toad-ally fucked.
Until Obama got elected, I never realized how fucked liberals were, in fact.
I won’t be voting for ron paul, but at least he has principles, of a sort.
Liberal principles, these days, seem to amount to an infant crying, “Where’s my sushi?”
Such liberals can “chug balls.”
You are all sacrilege to your own supposed cause of the enlightenment. Worse than embarrassing, I’m going to buy a shot-gun for my back porch, not against the wing-nuts but against liberals like you who allow predatory lending and huge financial fraud, and war crimes. You are sick mother-fucking individuals.
goodnight!
(what time is dinner tomorrow?)
this is quite impressive.
You need to put “You are all sacrilege to your own supposed cause of the enlightenment.” on the masthead.
That is just all kinds of awesome.
I prefer, “I suck cattle balls as big as the Sun.”
“you quote the NYT with credulity.” Same grenade, really.
Bigger. Or that’s what I read.
Indeed, you are correct. Bigger than the Sun.
Not cow balls. Not bull balls.
Cattle. It’s the little things that make that rant special.
whatever the fuck…
Enter the Worm. Ya’alls (and my’alls) are fucked.
Boo’s spin is “embarrassing” now. Fuck, he may well as be andrew sullivan, hitch, john cole, the whole fucking crew as far as i care. It is both disgusting and embarrassing.
You don’t have a clue, do you. Not a question.
Agreed. Small touches are so important.
Roughly a week ago, Juan Cole wrote a post in which he said Israeli officials were down playing the possibility of military action. I certainly hope they won’t invade.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/01/israel-no-iranian-nuclear-weapons-program-barak-any-decision-to-stri
ke-iran-far-off.html
One can certainly hope, but this passage from the Bergman story isn’t very encouraging:
You get the sense here and elsewhere that Barak and Netanyahu are playing out a good cop/bad cop scenario that they’ve had written since long ago.
Contrast that with this quote from the old Defense Minister, Dagan (from page 11):
As others have noted above, the logistics of a successful air strike are horrible; when you add in the likelihood that Iran can rebound in a matter of months, and will almost certainly strike back one way or another, again to echo other sentiments from above, Israeli officials must be losing their minds. And most unfortunately, it looks like Barak and Netanyahu are part of the coalition of the insane.
.
Diary – Ronen Bergman Selling A Book on Iran
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."“[Barak] and Netanyahu, he said, are responsible “in a very direct and concrete way for the existence of the State of Israel — indeed, for the future of the Jewish people.””
Hey Ehud and Bibi, quick tip: there are a shitload of Jews (and Jewish-ish people like me, from mixed families) right here in the United States, many of who are never going to set foot in Israel (and quite frankly, have no desire to). Stop conflating your destiny with ours. I’m sorry you can’t get along with your neighbors, but this trope that Iran’s gonna “wipe you out”, just doesn’t speak to me, because of all those nuclear missiles you have. Projection, much?
Seriously, this idea of Ehud Barak’s, that he’s “responsible… for the future of the Jewish people” is megalomania. It ain’t 1938 anymore.
.
Taking revenge under the presumption that one is the innocent party in the matter. Perhaps the Mossad assassinations are just plain evil and should be condemned under International Law. Are you listening Obama? Common Judeo-Christian ethics, morality and values?
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Indeed, brendan. History has proven the fundamental premise of the original Zionist project – the notion that only a Jewish state can protect the Jewish people from anti-Semitic oppression and genocide – completely wrong.
Jews are a hell of a lot safer in America than in Israel.
hey we agree on something!
That makes twice now; check the Wonder Woman thread.
So the Maya were right after all! TEOTWAWKI!
(Yes yes, I know there’s not actual doomsday prophecy.)
Hey maybe we could use some of them shiny F-22s to smack some sense into the Israelis.
Booman, delete this whole string for Don, please.
An Iranian bomb more scary for Israel than a Pakistani one?
You really can’t imagine why?
Hmm.
No, I can.
But I’d like to see someone at least try to explain it in an article like that.