I think Juan Cole is right when he lists some of the bad consequences of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear research facilities. It would likely cause a spike in oil prices that would not be appreciated by anyone. It would likely cause a barrage of rocket fire from southern Lebanon and Gaza that would necessitate yet another Israeli-Lebanon war. European public opinion would be sufficiently horrified by Israel’s actions to take unprecedented economic steps to punish them. The Syrian resistance would be crushed and the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis strengthened. Iraq would probably join that axis in important respects. Egypt could conceivably rip up the Camp David accords.
On the other hand, if Israel is restrained and patient, the Russians’ worst fear may be realized. The Assad regime will fall, eliminating Russian influence in the country and creating a break in the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis. Hezbollah would be weakened and Israel’s northern border would become more secure. Iran’s ability to make trouble on Israel’s borders would be diminished and their position in the region would be contained and isolated.
Sometimes I feel like Israeli political leaders need Iran to provide an excuse for inaction on the peace process and support for a deteriorating status quo. But the truth is that Israel learned during the 2006 war with Lebanon that they are extremely vulnerable to rocket attack and they have no idea how to solve that problem, which is only getting worse. Simply put, Israel feels too insecure to talk peace. They are too insecure to politically get away with making concessions. Unless the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis can be broken and Israel’s borders secured, the politics in Israel will continue to be extremely unfavorable.
I admit to having a nuanced view which might be hard to discern since it doesn’t fall neatly on one side or the other of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. My view is that Iran’s influence in Syria and Lebanon is bad for both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It’s bad for the Palestinians because it makes any progress for peace impossible, and it makes the Israelis act in a very bellicose and defensive manner. It’s bad for Israelis because it they are ringed by increasingly accurate and well-armed rockets that they cannot adequately defend. The result is a status quo in which the position of both the Israelis and the Palestinians grows worse every day. The Israeli civilian population becomes more vulnerable while the Palestinians lose more land with the passage of time.
As the much stronger party, the Israelis won’t negotiate or make needed concessions if they don’t feel secure, and Iran’s actions make them feel less and less secure. This is more than an ideological position. It’s a psychological reality that creates political constraints. Anyone who thinks Israel will behave better toward the Palestinians if they are threatened is simply wrong, in my opinion.
To give an example, one can plausibly argue that Hezbollah won the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon War but you can’t say the same for the Palestinians. I don’t see how the Palestinians benefitted in any way.
Outside actions that bolster Israeli insecurity and paranoia wind up empowering the right-wing in Israeli politics, and that is always going to be bad news for the Palestinians and peace. That is the main result of the Beirut-Damascus-Tehran axis, and it’s why breaking that axis is in the interests of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
It would be quite amazing if the Israelis torpedoed the imminent break in that axis by making a preemptive attack on Iran that strengthened it. This is true especially because such an attack would rupture Israel’s relations with Turkey, Egypt, (probably) Jordan, and Europe, while quietly infuriating the American governing classes and Pentagon.
This is true especially because such an attack would rupture Israel’s relations with Turkey, Egypt, (probably) Jordan, and Europe, while quietly infuriating the American governing classes and Pentagon.
Why would it tick off the governing class? They love their war porn. It’s the military that would be PO’ed. Why do you think it’s never mentioned that Israel has nuclear weapons? That’s what makes this garment rendering over Iran so stupid. If you were leading Iran, you’d want nuclear weapons too. If nothing else, it gets you a seat at the table.
The cheering Republican masses may be motivated in their hawkishness by “love of war porn,” but it’s a big mistake to think that the people with actual power think that way.
Street toughs like to start fights to make themselves feel like tuff guyz. Mafia dons use violence very deliberately, rationally, for their own benefit.
There’s no angle for the American governing class in an Israeli attack on Iran. It would just cause problems, like a small-time hood violently doing business in a made-man’s neighborhood and attracting police attention.
Sensationalist war speculation is a profitable form of “journalism” in this country, but the only indicator that anybody should give a shit about is the status of IAEA inspectors inside Iran. If they’re still in there, there won’t be any fucking bombing by Israel.
Unless Iran kicks them out or they “mysteriously” rotate out at Israeli urging, there won’t be any war. It’s all posturing to create space for even more hyperinflation-inducing economic sanctions on Iran. Because, as history shows, extreme hyperinflation is such a great foundation for peaceful and progressive political change.
.
Read one of many diaries on topic – Timeline of Curious Events US-Israel and Tactical Stand-off and Optimistic? Believe Obama’s Grand ME Bargain.
PS: Israel doesn’t have the capacity to destroy Iran’s bunkers, that’s why Obama has promised to take care of business.
.
Next Step: US Unites for Military Intervention
Is Hillary Clinton in bed with the Neocons for military intervention in Syria and further isolate Tehran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Thereby providing more security for Israel and give a permanent peace a chance? Russia and China said it lacked credibility and vetoed the UNSC Resolution. Just a single day after Suzie Rice and Hillary Clinton vowed no military intervention in Syria ….
I can’t understand how the Washington Post can be a platform for a crazy neocon to express hatred of the Iranians and serve the US client states Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States in addition to Israel. Krauthammer uses the religious divide to support dictators kind to the West at the expense of hundreds of thousands innocent civilians caught up in the civil strife. Syria is no Libya and no Iraq …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I’m not convinced Israel is at all afraid of Syria, and would in fact greatly favor Assad over anyone else governing the state.
I mean, shit, Syria can do all of this against its own people back before when it was a fairly peaceful demonstration (the Syrian opposition is most certainly not peaceful, and I don’t support them or the current regime…in this case, like with the Iranian “Green Movement” I think it’s best to oppose both sides), yet the same army can’t be used against Israel to take back what was once theirs? Please.
Also, while peace might be better than the status quo, why are you insisting that peace be made with Israel in the first place? It’s definitely not the ideal outcome, that’s for sure. And I don’t even think it’s the likeliest of outcomes with all of the settlements.
First of all, I am not insisting on anything.
Secondly, I am not saying peace must be made with Israel, but that peace should be made between all parties.
Thirdly, I am arguing that the key obstacle to peace lies with the resistance of the strongest party, which remains Israel. And, therefore, managing the psychological outlook of the Israeli electorate (and by derivation, the Israeli political elite) is the paramount concern for those who want peace.
Fourthly, that making Israel feel insecure actually makes them more bellicose, harsher, less inclined to make concessions, and maintains a right-wing hard-line consensus with the electorate.
The precondition of peace is Israel feeling secure, which is what Carter, Sadat, Clinton, and King Hussein all understood.
As long as they are menaced from without, there won’t be any political room for making concessions within.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."1.) You’re insinuating that the countries in the region should make peace with Israel, and that failure to do so will only make the plight of the Palestinians worse. I say BS. Israel will only move when the US stops the same charade they were pulling with South Africa during Reagan. Appeasing their racist asses will solve nothing.
2.) “Peace should be made between all parties, [parties that include Israel].”
3.) The strongest party is the United States, not Israel.
4.) I’m so terribly sorry for the Israelis, who have it so hard that they’re feeling insecure. Woe is the Republican party that has it so bad because of how they talk about minorities. And those white people…they’re feeling insecure about minorities, and it’s totally understandable. We should you know, play patty-cake with them and alleviate their fears rather than crushing them.
5.) There is no precondition for peace because Israel has never wanted peace. And screw that Nazi-sympathizer Anwar Sadat.
It’s also odd that you’re making these excuses for Israel, but I’ve never seen them made regarding Iran.
Israel is a spoiled child. They will never stop doing their shit until the US steps up to the plate.
Besides, Israel’s political leaders don’t give a fuck about the Israelis anyway. Bibi’s wife Sara said it best:
Bibi is a leader who is greater than this entire country, he really is a leader on a national scale. We’ll move abroad. This country can burn.
When people say that Israel is beset by irrational hatred for that country, posts like this could serve as Exhibit A.
Yes. I take from his post that I ought to be advocating that we all get together and crush Israel.
I mean, I have many quibbles with his argument, but that particular part of it is hard to stomach. If that were the true attitude of the left in this country, then Israel would be pretty much absolved of all criticism.
.
I couldn’t say it any better than the man himself (Bill Clinton): “The moving goal posts of Netanyahu and the refusal to make a peace deal.”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Shorter #1: Israelis are the sole people in the face of the earth that do not respond to hostile actions by other countries by rallying around the flag.
recently; but I must object to the bias in taking Israeli psychology into account without taking similar account of the Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians, etc.
If Israeli culture is still suffering PTSD from the big one, they need to “get over it” now; justice requires it; they are not allowed to continually inflict what was inflicted upon them; but especially not as a reflection of US policy.
Who is really in control here? US GDP dwarfs Israel’s by a factor of 70. They are like Sarkozy in pumps, only a lot shorter, were it not for our foreign policy.
is not a prelude to war? Really?
It’s not a viable political option, nor is it a wise counter-proliferation policy, to sit idly by while Iran stockpiles enriched uranium. We can debate all day long the evidence for or against Iran’s current nuclear weapon activities. But they aren’t enriching uranium for a domestic energy source. This is a game of cat and mouse where Iran flirts around the edges of what’s allowable under the NPT. The object of our national policy is twofold. First and foremost, we want to keep enough scrutiny and pressure on to prevent Iran from weaponizing. Second, we want regime change. But we want organic regime change, not war. A middle ground is possible, which is that the regime goes the way of South Africa and abandons their enrichment program completely, allowing themselves to be free of their increasingly isolated position. That’s a satisfactory result from our national security interests and our responsibility for enforcing non-proliferation through the UN and the IAEA.
The alternative to war is not apathy and inaction.
edges of its own. As if Iran has not been the butt of imperial ambitions for long since before I was born. Regardless of moralizing, the jig is up on global empire, in any case. The credit markets can’t even handle the Greek CDS triggers, much less Spain. There won’t be any money left for new investment in exploration or refining. Petroplus, the biggest euro refinery, has already run out of financing, and Putin has no extra gas; funny how that happens during euro cold snaps. War with Iran, well, that would be the capper; that could very easily precipitate the impending doom, when oil shoots up $50.00 on day 1.
I’m totally seeing green shoots after that one, but I also see why the empire feels it must do something, because a Ponzi scheme in reverse (deflation) is pretty fucked up.
I predict that BooMan gets the shit kicked out of him in these threads for describing Israeli motives as being something other than Iago-like malevolence and rapaciousness.
Let’s see how I did.
Only twice so far.
Not as bad as I thought.