I agree that Iran’s leadership isn’t “crazy”…by their lights. But was Saddam Hussein “crazy” to think he could get away with invading Kuwait? Was he crazy try to fight of the Coalition forces? Was he crazy to invade Iran?
Saddam wasn’t crazy, but he was a warmonger who made terrible decisions for his country.
I don’t think the Iranian mullahs first act upon acquiring nuclear weapons will be to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv. Rather they will use that nuke as deterrance…they can stir up all kinds of trouble, and the world community won’t dare confront them directly, just like the US and the Soviet Union didn’t dare confront each other directly.
And the Iranian leadership might be rational by their lights…but not by ours. Read up on the history of the Iran-Iraq war. Martyrdom in service of a holy mission wouldn’t dismay them like it might US leadership. And martyrdom of the Iranian population (rather than the leaders) would bother them about as much as the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq bothers George Bush.
No Union leader could rationally believe that the Southern states - who went to the effort to secede, call up their militias, and put together armies while raiding federal strongholds - would simply fold at the first sight of blood. And yet the first volunteers the Union put together were done on 90-day enlistments because no one believed that the war would last longer than the first battle. Winfield Scott, one of the best strategists this country has ever produced, was pushed out of the Army because he made the mistake of publicly stating that the war would last two to three years.
No English commander could rationally believe that machine guns were no threat to their troops. And yet, many commanders did believe that, claiming that their destructive power was only useful against wogs and natives who didn’t have the discipline to stay cohesive. And millions died in World War One because commanders refused to learn the lessons of what happens when one assaults machine guns.
No one could rationally believe that, following the example of Pearl Harbor, attacking the United States would cause it to simply fold up and asquiesce. And yet, Osama bin Laden believed that a strong attack against the United States would cause it to withdraw from the Middle East. Never underestimate the ability of people to so wrap themselves up in their own rhetoric that they stop being able to look rationally - or even sanely at the evidence coming up to them.
John Corrado, in all your scenarios, a rationalization of some sort was available. Moreover, those were all conventional (not nuclear) scenarios.
I cannot imagine a scenario where Iranian leaders would think it would be a good idea to launch a nuclear first strike. Can you?
We were fed a steady diet of fear during the Cold War, and I see the same cycle starting again. Who stands to benefit from the fearmongering? The weapons industry, mostly. (But also Israel, to the extent we are taking out their enemies.)
It’s interesting. After the Cold War ended, you could sense the weapons manufacturers fishing around for a new way to stir up fear and promote the sale of their weapons systems. For a while, China was the Next Big Threat, and you saw a lot of articles about what we needed to do to get ready for the “inevitable” conflict with China.
Then came 9/11, and the war with Iraq, and well, those were just a godsend for weapons manufacturers. But now there is noise about the US pulling out of Iraq, and then what (oh what) will weapons manufacturers do to sell their goods? Time to crank up the fear machine again. Iran will do.
So anyway, I am tired and annoyed with all the fearmongering. I don’t believe it any more. I didn’t believe the Soviets wanted war. I didn’t believe China wanted war. I don’t believe Iran wants war. (Nuclear deterrance is remarkably effective.) And all the arm-waving in the world won’t change my views on this subject.
Would you really expect a US politician to say, “This one’s for Israel!”
My suspicion is necessarily based on circumstantial evidence. As I already noted, our list of asses to kick looks suspiciously like a list of Israel’s enemies.
And then there’s the fact that one of the prime architects of neocon theory was Richard Perle, whose close ties to Israel are well-known. Ditto Paul Wolfowitz
The Soviets didn’t want war. China didn’t want war. Iran doesn’t want war. And yet you believe the US does.
This is why I can’t understand your point of view. You have no problem imaging arms merchants and Israeli agents and other unsavory people with dubious agendas pushing the US into pointless wars. Yet these unsavory characters didn’t exist in the USSR? There weren’t people in the USSR who benefited from stirring up war hysteria and xenophobia?
Yeah, of course the Russians love their children too. But if you can imagine evil Americans starting a pointless war for no good reason, why the fuck can’t you imagine evil British, or Swedes, or Peruvians, or Nepalese, or Frenchmen doing the same thing? Or…evil Russians, or Chinese, or Iranians? Because the American Merchants of Death have a propaganda campaign to convince you that Iranians are evil bastards, therefore you’re convinced they must be tree-hugging bunny-lovers? If George Bush told you the sky was blue, would you therefore believe the opposite? Are there no Merchants of Death in Iran? In China? In Russia? If the US has Merchants of Death who get an erection at the thought of another pointless war, then how is it that no other country in the world has similar Merchants of Death? Why is America uniquely evil?
Always believing the opposite of whatever George Bush says isn’t cynicism, it is naivite.
It’s also hard to understand the argument that U.S. leaders make Mideast policy on the basis of overpowering fundamentalist Christian beliefs (including Bible-based justifications for supporting Israel), but that Muslim leaders who spout apocalyptic religious jargon in connection with violent scenarios don’t really mean it.
I’m unconvinced by the Michael Moore-style connect-the-dots analysis of how the U.S. supposedly bases military action on what benefits Israel (whatever happened to our urge to conquer the world’s oil supply as an explanation for everything?).
War with Iran would be such a political (and probable military) disaster that I can’t imagine the U.S. doing anything more than posturing for the forseeable future. And as to spoke-'s Insatiable Military Machine, it has been doing just fine selling arms abroad even without significant conflict, including the vast amounts of stuff it ships to the Saudis, other Arab nations and Israel.
Apples and oranges. With the Soviets, China, and a theoretical first-nuclear-strike-launching Iran, all would be facing the threat of nuclear retaliation. I don’t believe any of them would have been or would be so foolhardy.
On the other hand, the US, in launching a theoretical strike on Iran, faces no such nuclear threat. (Not yet, anyway. Not if the “Hit Iran now” crowd gets its way.)
There is absolutely no inconsistency in believing that the Soviets did not want war (with a nuclear-armed US), China did not want war (with a nuclear-armed US), and Iran doesn’t want war (with a nuclear-armed and overwhelmingly superior conventional armed US), but the US (or some elements within it) may indeed desire war with (a non-nuclear and militarily inferior) Iran.
Oh the wars aren’t pointless. They do serve interests. Just not the interests of the American people.
Did I say there weren’t such people in the USSR? Of course there were. Fearmongering served to rally support from and/or distract the Soviet populace just as it does here. But neither their warmongers nor ours were foolish enough to launch nuclear exchanges. And so instead we got brushfire wars in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan…
You’d have a hard time putting me in that category. I am a centrist, not a frothing Bush-hater. So find another straw man.
Or maybe try to rebut that noted conspiracy theorist Dwight Eisenhower, who knew better than anyone just how the arms industry operates. Do you think the risks of which he warned Americans were phantoms? Or do you imagine that those risks exist no more? Or that they have lessened with time?
Are you addressing me? When have I made such assertions about US leaders? Another strawman. If you find someone making such an assertion, call them on it, but I have seen it in this thread. I certainly don’t believe Bush or anyone within his administration is motivated by Biblical notions.
And I fully believe that some Muslim leaders would like to see Israel gone. I just don’t think that desire extends to launching a suicidal nuclear strike.
Similarly, the US wanted the Soviet regime gone, but that didn’t mean we were itching to fire up our nukes to get it done. That would have been suicidal. We weren’t suicidal then, and I don’t think nuclear-armed Iranians would be suicidal either.
So your argument boils down to, the US military is so powerful that no country on earth would DARE to fuck with us, so we’re the only militarily adventurous country on earth?
And you say the wars DO serve a purpose. Just not the interests of the American people. And an Iranian nutcase starting a war certainly isn’t going to improve the lives of the hapless Iranian people. But why the fuck doesn’t Iran have it’s local equivalent of the Merchants of Death? Why don’t they have the local equivalent of a xenophobic and easily led citizenry? Why don’t they have the local equivalent of citizens with dual loyalty? Why don’t they have the local equivalent of an establishment that welcomes war to distract an unruly citizenry?
American wars serve a purpose, glad we agree. So why wouldn’t Iranian wars serve a purpose? Not nuclear wars, the capacity to nuke Israel is much more valuable than actually nuking Israel, if you read above you’ll see where I said this. I honestly can’t understand why only amoral US and Israeli leaders benefit from war, but no other countries leaders imagine (correctly or incorrectly) that they might benefit from war. You do realize that there are wars in the world that don’t involve Israel and the US, right?
Israel has subs with nuclear launch capabilities. Even if Iran were to somehow get in a first strike that would “wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” the counterstrike would be absolutely devastating.
Moreover, in spite of all the rhetoric, I don’t think even the most militant Muslim wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth if it means inheriting a radioactive wasteland in place of Israel’s holy sites.
Lemur688, you’re just not getting me. The US can launch wars against non-nuclear nations without committing suicide. But you don’t see the US launching nuclear first strikes against other nuclear powers. To do so would be suicidal.
And nor do I believe a nuclear Iran would launch a nuclear first strike. To do so would be suicidal.
For that matter, I do not believe a non-nuclear Iran would launch an attack on the US or Israel. To attack either would result most assuredly in the destruction of the Iranian regime.
I do not believe the Iranians are crazy or irrational, and I certainly don’t believe they are suicidal.
Another strawman. Where have I said any such thing? Go look. I’ll wait.
What I have said is that nations do not launch wars that are obviously suicidal. (Obvious going in, not in hindsight, I hasten to clarify.)
Furthermore, Iran in particular is not apt to launch such a war against the US when a majority of Iran’s citizenry seems to prefer improved relations with the US.
I must add that a sure way for the US to destroy any goodwill among the Iranian citizenry would be to launch a first strike on Iran. That would surely provoke a rally-round-the-flag effect. And then we get a whole new batch of potential terrorists. Gosh wouldn’t that be great.
As far as US policy is concerned, I suppose my bottom line would be that when you get stung by a hornet, it is not the wisest response to go whack the hornet’s nest with a stick. Or to follow that up by whacking a couple of other nearby hornets’ nests for good measure.
Iran is the biggest hornets’ nest in the region, and it didn’t have a damn thing to do with the sting we got on 9/11. I say the US should leave them the hell alone.
Those people are idiots. But what does that have to do with anything? You seem to be arguing that their position is inconsistent with my position.
Yeah? So?
My position is entirely consistent. Bush is not seeking to steer the US toward Armageddon, and neither do I believe that the Iranian leaders desire to martyr their nation for Allah. People who think such things (of either Iranian leadership or US leadership) are fools.
Sure they are.
If I’d been President instead of Jimmy Cater in 1979, I’d have nuked an oil field and then called 'em up on the phone and told them they had 24 hours to leave the American embassy before I got mean.
Of course, I was young and had a testosterone problem back then.
Nonetheless, they just mentioned that “The United States isn’t foolish enough to go to war with Iran”. This to “Bring 'Em On Bush”? Those guys aren’t the sharpest bayonet in the charge.
Umm…I hate to bring this up, since we are now more civil and all, but the “mentally challenged” remark was referring to you and others here–not Israel or Pal. at all.
But see, so do I–and this is the sticking point (or one of them). It is BECAUSE Israel comes out on top that it is held to a higher standard. Just as the USA is (or was). We are supposed to be “better than that”. Look at Abu Graib and the horrors perpetuated there (cripes, another thread). That is not the US that I want to be associated with. We are supposed to take the high road. I expect Israel to do the same. And absolutely walk softly and carry a big stick. Problem is–we don’t see (or I don’t)–anything but Big Stick!
[quote]
I take your word, and accept the blame for misunderstanding you.
[/quote}
Aw shucks. Now I feel really bad for swearing at you. I lost my temper and posted in anger–I apologize as well. That is not the way I usually behave. Pax.
I will have to look up more re Zionists. Anyhow, I was under the impression that the Zionists did not want to wait for “deliverance”, but to bring deliverance to their people via a safe haven in Palestine. But if they were secular, so much the better.
Hey, this just in passing–what of the Jewish terrorist group called the Irgun? That was against the British occupying forces, so is only tangential to this thread, but I’m curious about them. Did they fade away? Or did they become a part of the spectrum of political thinking in Israel at some point? (much like Hamas is doing now). Just curious.
Huh. On my snarkier days, I would say that Israel IS the US foreign policy. Lord knows we here in the States rarely hear about anything else (or so it seems).
Ok. Deal.
Back to touchy subject here. While I condemn those doings on the part of Palestine, I also can’t quite believe that Israeli children are taught to like Palestinians or see them as neighbors. It may be taught, but what is really happening in the schoolyard, the shopping centers etc. I mean, if I’m an Israeli kid and I see my uncle hurt in a bus explosion–am I gonna love my neighbor who did this? Not likely.
To me, and I could be wrong–there is entrenched hostility on both sides, deep mis-trust and prejudice. I want to get at the root of it all–to help build trust by establishing relationships and friendships. I hope that Israeli kids are not taught that all Palestinians hate them–because I don’t think that’s true. Yes, they are taught to hate, but I just can’t believe that an entire people would act so monolithically.
I am glad I checked back in here. And doubly glad we could actually listen. I come away with the thought that perhaps things are even more wretched than even the news can demonstrate.
I was listening to someone on NPR-didn’t catch the whole name, but he has recently written a book on terror. Somebody Susskind. He said what disturbed him most (he was speaking of the US and Al Qaeda, but it fits here), was that no other solution, other than force was tried. He went on to say that it is a good idea to unite with your allies and try to divide your enemies. US policy post 9/11 has been to do the exact opposite–to our future detriment. (sorry, nother thread). But the same applies to Israel, no? And to Palestine–which I believe has a right to exist, but it must play nice with its neighbors. It cannot be allowed to spout off death threats to neighboring nations. It is in the methods of not allowing that that we differ.
Darn. I coded incorrectly. Sorry-this is my question, reposted, in case you don’t read the quote boxes…
I will have to look up more re Zionists. Anyhow, I was under the impression that the Zionists did not want to wait for “deliverance”, but to bring deliverance to their people via a safe haven in Palestine. But if they were secular, so much the better.
Hey, this just in passing–what of the Jewish terrorist group called the Irgun? That was against the British occupying forces, so is only tangential to this thread, but I’m curious about them. Did they fade away? Or did they become a part of the spectrum of political thinking in Israel at some point? (much like Hamas is doing now). Just curious.
I am pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-Jew, pro-Arab.
I think they fight each other out of revenge for the deaths of those who have perished in the seemingly endless slaughter. And it doesn’t really matter whether they are Jew or Arab. It is about family and pride and home.
Both sides are responsible from making and keeping the peace. They should compete to see who can be the most peaceful and accomodating. They should spend the rest of their lives praying, celebrating, eating and sharing recipes.
Puzzler, I’d like to thank you for your posts in this thread. While the first posts by you I read had made me think that your position was basically “we are good, the Arabs are bad, we shouldn’t care about them as humans”, the more I read the more you seem bright and level-headed to me. Actually, I think that if I was a (secular) Israeli Jew, I would probably hold positions similar to yours (I’m not, so they do differ somewhat). It’s really nice to see a liberal Israeli comment on his view of this conflict.
There is a question I want to ask you. In my other post in this thread, I said that previous posts by the Israeli dopers had convinced me that the general mood in Israel is that Arabs will never want peace, and therefore the right thing to do for Israel is to also stop caring about peace and instead, basically, terrorize Arabs into not daring to do anything while letting them exist as fourth-world states. I got this idea reading posts such as this one by Alessan (and in fact, I asked Alessan about it and he didn’t answer). How would you characterize his viewpoint? Is it similar to yours? Is it common in Israel?
Thanks for your attention, because I’m curious about the Israeli viewpoints.
