When Will Iran Be Attacked?

[dualstow]

I think I'm failing to work out your meaning (I'm a bit thick).  Are you making a rhetorical question to show how wrong I am to compare violence by a nation state to violence by a terrorist organization? The fact that Israel is a nation state makes the consequences of that violence no easier to bear for anyone personally harmed. I think supporting attacks by a nation state requires just as close scrutiny as supporting any kind of violence.

I love that there's a rhetorical question asking (insinuating) if (that) I'm making a rhetorical question. That's golden.
I believe you have to scrutinize the reason for the violence. What you did was to say Americans give money to the IRA, a terrorist organization, and that the US gives aid to Israel, and that for you it is "uncomfortably similar." I'd like you to elaborate on that. Are these other Americans "expressing their cultural heritage?" Or are some Jewish and non-Jewish Americans trying to help Israel defend itself?

Again, what kind of violence is it? Would Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facility remind you of the IRA, or would it be closer to a defensive strike?
Does Israel's violence remind you of the IRA's violence? These are nice direct questions, and I hope you'll answer directly instead of saying how great it would be if we could all get along, or how violence is wrong.
(Have to run to lunch now).

[Pointedstick]

Again, what kind of violence is it? Would Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facility remind you of the IRA, or would it be closer to a defensive strike?

Personally, I would not count that as a defensive strike. It's only defense if the Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy triangle is fulfilled (http://www.corneredcat.com/Ability_Oppo ... _Jeopardy/).

Right now, Iran lacks the ability or opportunity. Acquiring a nuke would fulfill those, but Jeopardy still wouldn't be fulfilled; even threats don't count. If my worst enemy buys a bunch of guns and then publicly threatens to shoot me at some point, I can't kick down his door and take him out. He has to be actually committing the violence before I can call it self-defense.

There's a very good reason for this high standard: it's to prevent pre-emptive violence that didn't actually pre-empt anything at all because the other party was just posturing. What if Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons? What if they are, but have no intention of aggressively firing them at Israel (because it would be suicidal)? Initiating a conflict in the absence of hard negative answers to these questions makes YOU the agressor and tarnishes your image in the eyes of everyone who would have been sympathetic and supportive had it been clear that your actions were actually unequivocally defensive in nature.

[Pointedstick]

There's a very good reason for this high standard: it's to prevent pre-emptive violence that didn't actually pre-empt anything at all because the other party was just posturing. Initiating a conflict in the absence of hard negative answers to these questions makes YOU the agressor and tarnishes your image in the eyes of everyone who would have been sympathetic and supportive had it been clear that your actions were actually unequivocally defensive in nature.

Doesn't that kind of sound like a description of the US under Bush II with respect to the invasion of Iraq?

Yes, absolutely. And look what kind of a mess we made! We spent blood and treasure for an unclear gain, and squandered the goodwill of 9/11 as the international community turned against us.

[Pointedstick]

If they are really so insane and suicidal that they want to destroy israel to create chaos and are ignoring the consequences to themselves, what's stopping them? Why not invade today? They're a huge and powerful country with long-range missiles and a one-million-man army. If they really wanted to squelch israel to usher in some kind of utopic fantasyland conflict to cleanse the world of unbelievers… why haven't they done it? And how does this square with the fact that Iran's military budget is, after the UAE, the lowest per capita in the middle east, and they've never started a war in modern history? The pieces just aren't fitting together for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forc ... ic_of_Iran

They have many cells along with Hezbollah here in the U.S. who are ready to commit terrorist acts should there be a confrontation between U.S. and Iran."

Isn't that, um, a really good reason not to precipitate a conflict when them?

[dualstow]

(yeah, it was a three-martini lunch).
It does have have the whiff of the preemptive strike against Baghdad, and lack of Jeopardy, well- you laid it out clearly. Still, it's very different from a massive invasion (like Israel's invasion of Lebanon) and although striking Iran would be a bad idea, I still think it is closer to defense than terrorism. Terrorism would be more like striking a city center or heavily populated area. Whether the Israelis who think a strike should be made are right or wrong (and again, I think they're wrong), this is not an act of terrorism.

[craigr]

The Iranians have built some of their nuclear facilities directly in, around, and below population centers. They are holding their own citizens as hostages to their nuclear program.

So has the US! Nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication facilities, nuclear naval bases, bio-weapons labs, etc. are all in, around, and below population centers. Or at least close enough that if there was a problem it would be a major disaster.

[murphy_p_t]

"Another thing I do not understand about this is Obama's and Romney's willingness to allow Netanyahu to dictate when America goes to war. "

To understand this, I'd suggest considering the following:

-AIPAC influence in the political process
-The number of "Jews" in the US who seem to put the interests of the state of Israel above those of the US.
-The number of "Jews" in high-level government positions within the US, including dual nationals
-The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong.

Oh dear, we didn't think you would figure it out so quickly! I'd better get rid of my copy of The Protocols of The Elders of Zion and that bowl full of the blood of Christian children in the back of my fridge.

I'm replying to this for those who read with an open mind...not those who are fast setting up straw-man arguments; and use mockery to stifle examination and debate.

To provide some justification of my concerns, I provide the following quote I found at http://www.stopaipac.org/index.htm

"With a budget of $65 million, and membership now standing at over 100,000, it is no wonder that congressional staffers consider it one of the most powerful and effective lobbies on Capitol Hill. "

"Once a year, AIPAC holds its annual conference in Washington DC.  In March of 2012, it was attended by over 12,000 participants.  Its annual policy conference is one of Washington’s largest gatherings of lawmakers, topped only by the President’s State of the Union address. Guests this year included President Obama and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi,Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . "

These quotes should give pause to any objective person who is fast to dismiss the first item on my list.

[Tortoise]

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was rated by Fortune Magazine back in 1997 as the 2nd most powerful lobbying group in the U.S. Not sure if it still holds that distinguished rank of influence, but it's probably still reasonably high on the list.

The Power 25 is a highly eclectic--almost curious--collection. From the 33-million-member American Association of Retired Persons, which polled No. 1 (to no one's surprise), to the ever controversial International Brotherhood of Teamsters (No. 25), and from the calculatedly quiet American Israel Public Affairs Committee (a remarkable No. 2) to the newly emergent National Restaurant Association (No. 24), the Washington 25 is as diverse as the nation itself.

Source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... /index.htm

Not stating a prejudice or personal bias. It's just an interesting fact I came across a few days ago, and I figured I'd share it with all of you.

[murphy_p_t]

I'll ask it again. What if it was the United States dictating to Israel when it can go to war? I heard Netanyahu saying that no government should put a red light before Israel if they are not willing to put a red line before Iran. I think that was pretty clear.

"He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Considering that the US gives over $3 Billion to Israel for military aid...why do you think it unreasonable for the Obama administration to exert influence and encourage Israel to exercise restraint?

As a US citizen, I find it very troubling that the Israeli leader is now barely disguising his attempts to influence the outcome of the upcoming US presidential election.

"It's not every day that an Israeli prime minister who by geopolitical necessity must be scrupulously neutral in an American presidential race, tailors his moves to the campaign of one party at the expense of the other."  http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... f_election

[dualstow]

"Another thing I do not understand about this is Obama's and Romney's willingness to allow Netanyahu to dictate when America goes to war. "

To understand this, I'd suggest considering the following:

-AIPAC influence in the political process
-The number of "Jews" in the US who seem to put the interests of the state of Israel above those of the US.
-The number of "Jews" in high-level government positions within the US, including dual nationals
-The protestant followers of pre- & post- millenarianism who think the state of Israel can do no wrong.

Oh dear, we didn't think you would figure it out so quickly! I'd better get rid of my copy of The Protocols of The Elders of Zion and that bowl full of the blood of Christian children in the back of my fridge.

I'm replying to this for those who read with an open mind...not those who are fast setting up straw-man arguments; and use mockery to stifle examination and debate.
...

I don't think there's any doubt that AIPAC wields massive influence on the U.S. Additionally, the amount of U.S. aid that goes to Israel, whether one thinks its for geo-political-strategic-whatever gain for the U.S. or merely the result of lobbying, or both, will always remain controversial.

I can't speak for the others, but I would guess the mockery was a direct reaction to your use of "The Jews", not to examination and debate. I mean, hello, there's a context here.

[stone]

dualstow

I don't think there's any doubt that AIPAC wields massive influence on the U.S. Additionally, the amount of U.S. aid that goes to Israel, whether one thinks its for geo-political-strategic-whatever gain for the U.S. or merely the result of lobbying, or both, will always remain controversial.

In a previous post you did say that there was also controversy within Israel. I'm still not sure whether that controversy you alluded to was about whether strategic entanglement with the USA creates a dependency that is actually dangerous for Israel. As an outsider, it looks like a very fragile "out on a limb" position for Israel to slip into.
My (probably mistaken) understanding was that Zionism was borne out of a wish that the Jewish nation would never again be in a position where survival depended on persuading others to provide protection etc. On the face of it AIPAC seems a betrayal of all of that.
To my mind the Swiss strategic model is the by far the surest way to assure a nations safety.

[Pointedstick]

To my mind the Swiss strategic model is the by far the surest way to assure a nations safety.

+500

[dualstow]

dualstow

I don't think there's any doubt that AIPAC wields massive influence on the U.S. Additionally, the amount of U.S. aid that goes to Israel, whether one thinks its for geo-political-strategic-whatever gain for the U.S. or merely the result of lobbying, or both, will always remain controversial.

In a previous post you did say that there was also controversy within Israel. I'm still not sure whether that controversy you alluded to was about whether strategic entanglement with the USA creates a dependency that is actually dangerous for Israel. As an outsider, it looks like a very fragile "out on a limb" position for Israel to slip into.
My (probably mistaken) understanding was that Zionism was borne out of a wish that the Jewish nation would never again be in a position where survival depended on persuading others to provide protection etc. On the face of it AIPAC seems a betrayal of all of that.
To my mind the Swiss strategic model is the by far the surest way to assure a nations safety.

I was referring more to the healthy, secular left-wing and moderates on both sides who don't make the foreign news as often, although there have been U.S. articles recently covering many Israelis' opposition to a strike on Iran's almost-nukes. I guess it's only natural. There are pro-USA protests in Korea, but in the media you only see the anti ones. And, you're more likely to find that clip of someone holding up human entrails and screaming in Ramallah -- a real clip that makes its way into too many clip compilations -- than to hear the voices of the moderates who live there.

I have no idea how Israelis feel about the negative side of AIPAC or how many feel that way. But, it seems like most people have tunnel vision in that they only think about Israel in terms of its military, Iran, Palestine & the settlements, and U.S. aid. It's as if there's nothing else going on there. When you do hear about companies and products coming out of there, it's often in the context of a boycott. For some of us, news about AIPAC or Iran is just one part of it, like Guantanamo is one part of what Americans read about US-related news. I've got a German-American friend who can't have a conversation about Israel without saying, "But the settlements..." even if the conversation started about hydroponic tomatoes.

As with AIPAC, I don't know how many Israelis think that receiving aid violates the original spirit of Zionism, nor whether that matters to them. I mean, the directors of a country have to be practical, so where would one draw the line on that? They have trade relations with Germany and Russia? Would that be allowed? I just can't imagine that country lasting very long as a hermit kingdom. Or, perhaps you mean trade is ok, but not aid? I really don't know whether they'd survive? Less aid? I think so.

I guess it's easier to be Switzerland when you're Switzerland. They didn't have countries on all sides trying to destroy them even as they were being formed. They didn't have survivors of a Swiss holocaust being sent to British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. They don't have people shooting missiles randomly into their schoolyards and hospitals every day. In short, I don't know if Israel can afford to be Switzerland.

[doodle]

Reub,

Have you travelled or lived in the Middle East for any time? Have you spoken with Muslims on the street about what they think of all this? Or, do you get all of your information about Islamic culture from Fox News heavyweight intellectuals like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?

I lived and traveled through the Middle East for 3 years. What I see on the television (especially Fox News) represents the smallest fraction of the population of those countries. It's as if a foreign news operation decided to portray American political sentiment by covering a KKK rally. Sure there is ignorance and radicalism over there, but there are a lot of people (the vast majority) who just want to lead ordinary, peaceful lives. I can assure you that they don't wake up every morning and strap a dynamite vest to their chest, scream Allahu Akbar! and look for a way to wage Jihad.

My three years there (surrounded by many Americans) were filled with warm memories of friendly people. I was only accosted by people trying to sell me things in the markets or come up and meet me. I never had a single incident where I felt threatened. Now, there were areas that were more dangerous than others (hotbeds of radicals so to speak) and I stayed out of those areas.....kind of like I would stay out of certain areas of LA, or Chicago, or NY.  

On the whole, however, I fear that your perspective on cultures is being colored by a xenophobic media station and their rightwing radio cronies trying to sell you "fear" and you (like many Americans) have very little understanding of Islamic culture or religion.

[doodle]

Is your last line a joke?  ::)

I guess while were doing comedy I'll bring in the late Bill Hicks:

Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, "We still live in a dangerous world."...Thanks to you, you fu****!"

Maybe if we would stop arming guys like Saadam and Osama to begin with, we wouldn't have to be constantly going in to clean up messes that we created.

[doodle]

Isn't the PP a "maybe" strategy?

I know that Fox news likes to paint the world in black and white, but unfortunately that is far from reality.

Lack of nuance makes for a very risky planet.

[stone]

dualstow

I guess it's easier to be Switzerland when you're Switzerland. They didn't have countries on all sides trying to destroy them even as they were being formed. They didn't have survivors of a Swiss holocaust being sent to British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. They don't have people shooting missiles randomly into their schoolyards and hospitals every day. In short, I don't know if Israel can afford to be Switzerland.

I think there is a chicken and egg situation here. Remember just how much war there has been in Europe. Switzerland has been surrounded by countries waging war on one another almost constantly since before Switzerland existed. I'm sure Switzerland could have ensured constant war and peril for itself if Switzerland had devoted its energies to forming strategic entanglements with some far off imperial power (lets imagine Turkey, Russia or Spain or whatever) and had become embroiled in the politics of that empire, persuading them to instil hated pet despots as rulers of all of the countries surrounding Switzerland etc.

I guess Singapore started as a nation at the same time as Israel. If wonder whether had Israel made similar demands for land as Singapore did; then would Israel now be a genuinely independent nation that did not feel the need to try and influence the politics of other countries in order to get vast amounts of aid and military back up? I appreciate that there is no going back over the past but I think it is vital to not head off even further down a tragic path.

[dualstow]

dualstow

I guess it's easier to be Switzerland when you're Switzerland. They didn't have countries on all sides trying to destroy them even as they were being formed. They didn't have survivors of a Swiss holocaust being sent to British-controlled Allied Occupation Zones in Germany. They don't have people shooting missiles randomly into their schoolyards and hospitals every day. In short, I don't know if Israel can afford to be Switzerland.

I think there is a chicken and egg situation here. Remember just how much war there has been in Europe. Switzerland has been surrounded by countries waging war on one another almost constantly since before Switzerland existed. I'm sure Switzerland could have ensured constant war and peril for itself if Switzerland had devoted its energies to forming strategic entanglements with some far off imperial power (lets imagine Turkey, Russia or Spain or whatever) and had become embroiled in the politics of that empire, persuading them to instil hated pet despots as rulers of all of the countries surrounding Switzerland etc.

I guess Singapore started as a nation at the same time as Israel. If wonder whether had Israel made similar demands for land as Singapore did; then would Israel now be a genuinely independent nation that did not feel the need to try and influence the politics of other countries in order to get vast amounts of aid and military back up? I appreciate that there is no going back over the past but I think it is vital to not head off even further down a tragic path.

You know, I've done enough arguing about Israel and Palestine (ie was it bought? was it seized? since the Internet was young on forums related more to this topic than a Permanent Portfolio forum. I hope it doesn't sound like a cop-out when I say I also appreciate there is no going back over the past.

Israel has done plenty of things in recent times with which I disagree. For me, though, there is no chicken and egg question here. It is amazing enough that it was ever granted statehood, and fantasizing that they could have gotten what Singapore got is taking Monday morning quarterbacking to a ridiculously new level.

Britain and other countries screwed up royally with Palestine, and maybe Israel would have been better off in Alaska like in a certain fanciful novel, but no one is trying or has ever tried to exterminate Singaporeans or Swiss. When people carved swastikas into the subway car I was riding in Moscow in the 90s, I thought not of the Singaporeans or Swiss. I'm throwing my hands up here at the chicken-and-egg thing being invoked. I don't know. Maybe outsiders will never get it.

[Storm]

I've long since finished trying to win an argument with Reub.  "I know its true because I saw it on Fox" is mostly unfixable.  To be honest, the pasttime of watching cable news (whatever your show, be it Fox, CNN, or MSNBC) and getting riled up on some cause that is horribly misrepresented, then taking your rage to the internets is exactly what is wrong with this country.

The extremist muslic clerics would love for their people to be so angry at American films that they riot in the streets and create diversions while the organized terrorists attack foreign embassies.

The extremist fundamentalist christian preachers would love for their people to be so angry at muslims attacking foreign embassies that they riot in the streets and protest dead veteran funerals with appalling signs like "God hates gays."

The rest of us (the 99.999% of normal people in all countries) would do best to ignore all of this posturing and just go about our daily lives.  War is largely encouraged by those who profit from it.  Let's return to the Eisenhower era Republicans, which would be better for this country than any party, demopublican or republicrat....

[Xan]

I've long since finished trying to win an argument with Reub.

Then what's with all the spam on the other thread he just started?

[Storm]

I've long since finished trying to win an argument with Reub.

Then what's with all the spam on the other thread he just started?

Just being "fair and balanced..."

[Ad Orientem]

FWIW I think Israel is a sovereign country and should be free to act in its own interests without US interference. If they think they need to go to war with Iran, fine. That's their affair. But I do not think Israel has any right to drag us into their wars. If we find much of that part of the world is hostile to us, I would respectfully suggest that 9 out of 10 enemies are of our own creation. Our arrogant foreign policy has understandably ticked off a lot of people in the world. Seriously, we are our own worst enemy. Does anyone ever pause to consider why no one hates Switzerland? Well... other than the IRS.


Clearly Iran is planning to attack us! Just look at how close those sneaky bastards put their country to all of our military bases (stars)!

[Ad Orientem]

On a side note Murphy's comment about the Jewish lobby was really really badly worded. It made me wince. But the point is not invalid. Israel has an incredibly powerful lobby in Washington. And no, I don't think foreign governments should be allowed to establish domestic political lobbies in this country. That's not limited to Israel. I think it should apply to all foreign states. The only foreign government lobby that should be allowed is called an embassy. And yes, it is unseemly for Americans to be so closely tied in their obvious allegiances to a foreign state, even a friendly one.

[Ad Orientem]

You don't think that the Islamo-Fascists want to take down Switzerland too? Or France? Great Britain? Denmark? Canada? Russia? China? Australia as well? Think again.

Sticking your head in the sand and hoping that they will like us (as long as we do what they say) is not a wise policy.

I think that what you call the Islamo-Fascists did not exist until we created them in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Again we are our own worst enemy. Every time we stick our nose into parts of the world that are none of our business it comes back to burn us.

[Ad Orientem]

They did not exist before the '80's? Please check your facts. They existed a long time before we used them in Afghanistan or before the State of Israel even existed.

I am not aware of any major expansionist wars by Islam since the 16th century. I am however aware of three centuries of expansionist wars by Western/Christian nations against Islamic peoples that continued deep into the last century. If you want to talk history, then the record is pretty clear that for the last three hundred years or so we have been the aggressors.

But if you want to make an argument for restricting Muslim immigration to the US I might actually be on board with that. There is some reasonably credible evidence that devout Muslims don't integrate well in western societies. Beyond that what goes on in their part of the world is no more our business than our internal politics are theirs.