Obama, Romney, Israel and iran

[Prospero]

Patrick Buchanan: Has Obama Called Bibi’s Bluff? – OpEd
By: Patrick J Buchanan

September 11, 2012


What is Bibi Netanyahu up to?

With all his warnings of Iran’s “nuclear capability,” of red lines being crossed, of “breakout,” of the international community failing in its duty, of an “existential threat” to Israel, what is the prime minister’s game?

The answer is apparent. Bibi wants Iran’s nuclear program shut down, all enrichment ended, all enriched uranium removed and guarantees that Iran will never again start up a nuclear program.

And if Tehran refuses to surrender its right even to a peaceful nuclear program, he wants its nuclear facilities, especially the enrichment facility at Fordow, deep inside a mountain, obliterated.

And he wants us to do it.

How has Bibi gone about getting America to fight Israel’s war?

He is warning, indeed threatening, that if we do not set a date certain for Iran to end enrichment of uranium, and assure Israel that we will attack Iran if it rejects our ultimatum, Israel will bomb Iran and start the war itself.

Fail to give us assurances that you will attack Iran if Iran refuses to surrender its nuclear “capability,” Bibi is warning, and we will attack Iran, with all the consequences that will have for you, for us and for the Middle East.

This is diplomatic extortion.

Thus far, Obama has called Bibi’s bluff, assuming it is a bluff.

The United States has refused to set a date certain by which Iran must end all enrichment. Hillary Clinton said this weekend that we are “not setting deadlines.” And the election, which could give Obama a free hand to pursue his own timetable and terms for a deal with Tehran, is only eight weeks off.

If Obama, no fan of Bibi, wins, he can tell Bibi: We oppose any Israeli pre-emptive strike. If you attack Iran, we will not support you. Nor will we follow up an Israeli attack with an American attack.

Bibi’s dilemma: Despite his threats of Israeli strikes on Iran, Tehran is taunting him. His Cabinet is divided. The Shas Party in his coalition opposes a war, as do respected retired generals, former Mossad leaders and President Shimon Peres.

And the Americans have sent emissaries, including Secretary Leon Panetta, to tell Bibi we oppose an Israeli attack. The Pentagon does not want war. Three former U.S. Central Command heads oppose a war. And last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey said he does not wish to be “complicit” in any Israeli attack.

Implied in the word “complicit” is that Dempsey believes an Israeli first strike on Iran could be an act of aggression.

The Israelis were furious, but suddenly the war talk subsided.

From the clashes, public and private, between these two close allies, it is apparent the United States shares neither Israel’s assessment of the threat nor Israel’s sense of urgency.

Why not? Why, when Netanyahu says Israel is facing an “existential threat,” do the Americans dismiss it?

The first reason is the elephant in the room no one mentions: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. If Fordow is a difficult target for Israel to destroy with conventional air strikes, it could be annihilated with a single atom bomb.

And Israel has hundreds.

Indeed, if Israel has ruled out use of an atomic weapon, even when it says its very existence is threatened, and neoconservatives claim that Iran’s mullahs are such death-wishing fanatics they cannot be deterred even by nuclear weapons, what is Israel’s awesome atomic arsenal for?

What this suggests is that the Israelis do not believe what they are saying. Their nuclear deterrent is highly credible to all their neighbors. Their existence is not in imminent peril. And the mullahs are not madmen.

When Ronald Reagan was about to take the oath, suddenly those mullahs, assessing that the new American president might be a man of action, not just words, had all the U.S. hostages winging their way home.

When the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988, the Ayatollah Khomeini, founding father of the Islamic Republic, ended his war with Iraq on unfavorable terms, fearing America was about to intervene on the side of Saddam Hussein.

Like all rulers, good and evil, Iran’s leaders want to preserve what they have — families, homes, lives, privileges, possessions, power. When suicide missions are ordered, you do not read of ayatollahs or of Iranian politicians driving the truck or wearing the vest.

Moreover, the latest report of the international inspectors reveals that while Iran increased its supply of uranium enriched to 20 percent since last spring, an even larger share of that 20-percent uranium has been diverted to make fuel plates for Iran’s U.S.-provided research reactor to make medical isotopes.

If there is no reason to go to war with Iran, there is every reason not to go to war. Notwithstanding the alarmist rhetoric of Bibi and Ehud Barak, President Obama should stand his ground. And on this one, Gov. Romney should stand with the president, not the prime minister.

[Stavros]

Prospero, if you want an intelligent and informed debate on Iran's -or for that matter the Middle East region's- creation of a nuclear industry, Patrick Buchanan is not the go-to source for it. Kenneth Waltz, who knows more about the nuclear energy and weapons industry than most people, recently published an article in Foreign Affairs in which he stated categorically:

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.
It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb


This link only takes you to a brief version, an interview with Waltz which goes back through the ideas in his article and takes in other issues -China, and Obama's foreign policy, is here;
http://thediplomat.com/2012/07/08/kenneth-waltz-on-why-iran-should-get-the-bomb/


Buchanan's position on the Democrats and their recent convention should be noted -he refers to the Platform the DNC produced thus:
The authors of the Democratic platform have inadvertently revealed to the world the sea change that has taken place in that party we once knew.
For the first time — and in the longest Democratic platform in history, 26,000 words — there was not a single mention of God, the Creator, whom Thomas Jefferson himself, father of the party, proclaimed to be the author of our right to life and liberty.
(*He did not note that the word 'Afghanistan' was never mentioned once in Mitt Romney's speech to the RNC)

He berates the Party's position on abortion:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken that right. …
“There is no place for … government to get in the way.”
Under this plank, the father has no rights whatsoever and no role in deciding whether his unborn child lives or dies. There are no parental rights. Society cannot interfere in any way with a woman’s decision to terminate her unborn child’s life at any point in her pregnancy.
This is a Democratic declaration of support for partial-birth abortion in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy should a woman so decide, with the rest of us forced to pay for that abortion.
This is a form of feminist fanaticism heretofore unseen in this republic.


And ends:


No platform celebrating homosexual marriage and backing a woman’s right to abort her child at any time in her pregnancy can be credibly adopted by a party that also purports to revere the God of our Founding Fathers.
In truth, this Democratic Party was a godless institution long before its platform writers declared it to be so.
The howlers had it right. God doesn’t belong in that platform.
http://buchanan.org/blog/a-godless-party-expels-the-creator-5235


Choose your commentators, just picking anyone won't do.

[NYBURBS]

Prospero, if you want an intelligent and informed debate on Iran's -or for that matter the Middle East region's- creation of a nuclear industry, Patrick Buchanan is not the go-to source for it. Kenneth Waltz, who knows more about the nuclear energy and weapons industry than most people, recently published an article in Foreign Affairs in which he stated categorically:

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.
It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb


This link only takes you to a brief version, an interview with Waltz which goes back through the ideas in his article and takes in other issues -China, and Obama's foreign policy, is here;
http://thediplomat.com/2012/07/08/kenneth-waltz-on-why-iran-should-get-the-bomb/


Buchanan's position on the Democrats and their recent convention should be noted -he refers to the Platform the DNC produced thus:
The authors of the Democratic platform have inadvertently revealed to the world the sea change that has taken place in that party we once knew.
For the first time — and in the longest Democratic platform in history, 26,000 words — there was not a single mention of God, the Creator, whom Thomas Jefferson himself, father of the party, proclaimed to be the author of our right to life and liberty.
(*He did not note that the word 'Afghanistan' was never mentioned once in Mitt Romney's speech to the RNC)

He berates the Party's position on abortion:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken that right. …
“There is no place for … government to get in the way.”
Under this plank, the father has no rights whatsoever and no role in deciding whether his unborn child lives or dies. There are no parental rights. Society cannot interfere in any way with a woman’s decision to terminate her unborn child’s life at any point in her pregnancy.
This is a Democratic declaration of support for partial-birth abortion in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy should a woman so decide, with the rest of us forced to pay for that abortion.
This is a form of feminist fanaticism heretofore unseen in this republic.


And ends:


No platform celebrating homosexual marriage and backing a woman’s right to abort her child at any time in her pregnancy can be credibly adopted by a party that also purports to revere the God of our Founding Fathers.
In truth, this Democratic Party was a godless institution long before its platform writers declared it to be so.
The howlers had it right. God doesn’t belong in that platform.
http://buchanan.org/blog/a-godless-party-expels-the-creator-5235


Choose your commentators, just picking anyone won't do.

While I disagree with Buchanan on many social issues, his foreign policy is a different story. He has been railing against our empire building for quite some time, so I don't think it's inappropriate to look to him on this issue. There is some common ground between elements of the republican and democratic parties that both oppose our interventions all over the world. It's necessary for people to set aside some of the rhetoric about domestic social issues and work together on the common interest of stopping our insane and unsustainable foreign policy.

[Stavros]

I agree with you about Buchanan's foreign policy positions, but that doesn't satisfy my bias; my point is that there are plenty of alternative views on this issue in the US and I for one would not give Buchanan any more oxygen of publicity than he already has.

[flabbybody]

my plea for peace:
An Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran would be universally condemned by the world diplomatic community, outside of maybe the US and the UK. I'm not sure Obama would want to risk so much political capital with a concerted mobilization of military support in the way President Nixon did for Golda back in the 70's.
In 2012 our nations are war weary. It would be an impossible sell to convince the electorate that anything good can come from starting another world conflict.
We all remember our American history.... George Washington exited his second administration with a dire warning to his new nation about the risks of foreign entanglements.

[robertlouis]

my plea for peace:
An Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran would be universally condemned by the world diplomatic community, outside of maybe the US and the UK. I'm not sure Obama would want to risk so much political capital with a concerted mobilization of military support in the way President Nixon did for Golda back in the 70's.
In 2012 our nations are war weary. It would be an impossible sell to convince the electorate that anything good can come from starting another world conflict.
We all remember our American history.... George Washington exited his second administration with a dire warning to his new nation about the risks of foreign entanglements.

I rather suspect that you couldn't count on support from the UK on such an action this time around, perhaps not even in the security council.

[hippifried]

Israel can't reach Iran without flying over airspace controlled by the US or it's allies. I think Bibi has his panties in a bunch because he can't get permission to attack.

[trish]

Here's the deal. We get Iran to get rid of all their enrichment facilities, their triggering technology, everything and agree to regular in depth inspections. in return Israel gives them half of their warheads with detonators and delivery systems. Then everyone can live happily ever after secure in the knowledge afforded by mutually assured destruction.

[Prospero]

Stavros. I did not post the Buchanan piece because i wanted 'informed opinion" I know where to source that and have read it aplenty. That was not the point. It was the political significance of this deeply Conservative politician asking both Obama and Romney to stand together on this to resist the blandishments of Netanyahu in squaring up to iran.

[broncofan]

Pat Buchanan may have said a number of unsupportable and even crazy things in the past, but I suppose it's fair to judge his words as they appear. There's nothing I disagree with in the article except for the threat that Iran having nuclear weapons actually has. It is not the potential for detonation of the weapons but as tools of blackmail to commit unchecked aggression in the region that is the more likely use. There is also the danger of the nuclear material being distributed as well as proliferation of that kind of material to terrorist organizations operating in multiple states.

I also am always a bit surpised at the seeming schadenfreude of those who want Iran to get weapons. That should not even be a threshold question (whether they should have them or it would be equitable). The question is how far each respective party should go to prevent them from getting them. It is reasonable to consider sanctions and bluffs to be the extent of what the U.S is willing to do and to be actively opposed to pre-emptive strikes. Quite frankly I think Israel's situation respecting Iran is fundamentally different from that of any other country. As a result, Bibi really is not presenting a plausible argument when he says we're all in the same boat; rather it's a transparently self-serving argument. But I know for a fact that mutually assured destruction in that region should not be what any sane person wants.

This is not just because of the religious conflicts. M.A.D did not work out very well the first time, nearly led to nuclear conflict and I think it is patently false that the use of a nuclear weapons is made more remote by the presence of multiple parties with nukes. The notion that everyone is safer because you give other people the same weapons as their adversary is not something that has been thoroughly tested. I'd hate to see the hypothesis fail. Frankly it seems like very thick-headed, context independent thinking. One might say, well we would not have used nuclear weapons against Japan if they possessed their own arsenal. There is something in that argument, but the increase in probability that one party will use them against an unarmed party is more than made up for by the potential conflict reaching apocalyptic proportions if both sides are similarly armed.

[broncofan]

"Indeed, if Israel has ruled out use of an atomic weapon, even when it says its very existence is threatened, and neoconservatives claim that Iran’s mullahs are such death-wishing fanatics they cannot be deterred even by nuclear weapons, what is Israel’s awesome atomic arsenal for?"

This sentence has holes in it from left to right. First, Israel has not ruled out the use of an atomic weapon in existential matters and has maintained a fairly ambiguous policy on it. But he said if, so let's engage the hypothetical. It's quite possible the Iranians, if they were suicidal, would be deterred by nuclear weapons if they could not deal a fatal blow to Israel but would not be so deterred if they could. It is likely that one who is willing to give his life for religious or other reasons so that he can inflict damage on his enemy does consider the amount of damage he can inflict relevant.

I also don't think the examples given by Buchanan is very good evidence that Iran would not be willing to use a nuclear weapon if its regime were collapsing in order to achieve something significant. It depends on what situation Iran was in. What if Iran faced the situation Bashar Al Assad faces? Or that Qaddafi faced? Yes, I am comparing apples and oranges, but I don't get the sense after the previous election of Ahmadinejad and the violence in Tehran that this is the type of stable regime not capable of imploding. And if they did, their use of nuclear weapons if they possessed them would become much more likely.

Again, doesn't change my opinion that sanctions are the extent of the actions that are reasonable for the U.S to take or accept. But if one analyzes Israel's foreign policy choices, it is much more difficult question. Israel and the U.S's interests in the matter are clearly divergent, even if by matter of degree and potential necessity.

[onmyknees]

Barry has said his position is "I will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.....period" Boy journalist turned Obama mouthpiece, Jay Careny repeated that yesterday. Could one of you Obama sycophants who can interpret double speak please translate that for me....considering the sanctions are not, and have not worked, and many experts feel if Iran doesn't already have the weapons, they will shortly. Or can we blow this off as an election promise unfulfilled like so many others?
And if they do obtain nukes and Obama looses...can Romney blame him for the region being destabilized for 4 years? Seems only fair.

I'm serious....what the fuck does that mean?

[robertlouis]

Barry has said his position is "I will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.....period" Boy journalist turned Obama mouthpiece, Jay Careny repeated that yesterday. Could one of you Obama sycophants who can interpret double speak please translate that for me....considering the sanctions are not, and have not worked, and many experts feel if Iran doesn't already have the weapons, they will shortly. Or can we blow this off as an election promise unfulfilled like so many others?
And if they do obtain nukes and Obama looses...can Romney blame him for the region being destabilized for 4 years? Seems only fair.

I'm serious....what the fuck does that mean?

To be fair, the region has been unstable ever since we Brits made promises we didn't keep both during and in the aftermath of the First World War. We fucked it up.

Bush made the same promise with regard to Iran's nuclear capability. Quite what a President Romney would or could do any differently in terms of policy to that currently adopted by Obama is pretty hard to identify. And I guess that in terms of being "only fair", it's also worth reminding ourselves that Bush and Blair's war in Iraq, founded on a lie, hasn't exactly added to regional stability either. And as for the vainglorious adventure in Afghanistan....

[onmyknees]

To be fair, the region has been unstable ever since we Brits made promises we didn't keep both during and in the aftermath of the First World War. We fucked it up.

Bush made the same promise with regard to Iran's nuclear capability. Quite what a President Romney would or could do any differently in terms of policy to that currently adopted by Obama is pretty hard to identify. And I guess that in terms of being "only fair", it's also worth reminding ourselves that Bush and Blair's war in Iraq, founded on a lie, hasn't exactly added to regional stability either. And as for the vainglorious adventure in Afghanistan....


Nope...not a satisfactory answer RL. Your guy is the current occupant of the big office and Bush is cutting brush in Texas and visiting vet hospitals. Barry made the statement as a cornerstone of his mid east policy. With respect to the lie....get off that tired stale left wing talking point. If it was a lie everyone fell for it, and as shaky as it might be....Iraq is as stable as any nation in the region, that credit goes to Bush. You can't have it both ways dude. You think it's chaos now...wait until the madman has his hands on the red button. So....I ask you again....please explain what Barry's policy with respect to Iran is. You'd make a great Obama campagn manager. You never answered the question, and all roads lead to Bush. If in the next year Iran announces it actually has a weapon and the means to deliver it, and begins threatening Israel.....what will you use as a defense of Barry then> Blame Bush?

[Prospero]

Iraq is as stable as any nation in the region, that credit goes to Bush. Do you actually seriously believe that!!!! You are living in fucking cloud cuckoo land OMK

[hippifried]

Barry has said his position is "I will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.....period" Boy journalist turned Obama mouthpiece, Jay Careny repeated that yesterday. Could one of you Obama sycophants who can interpret double speak please translate that for me....considering the sanctions are not, and have not worked, and many experts feel if Iran doesn't already have the weapons, they will shortly. Or can we blow this off as an election promise unfulfilled like so many others?
And if they do obtain nukes and Obama looses...can Romney blame him for the region being destabilized for 4 years? Seems only fair.

I'm serious....what the fuck does that mean?
It means what it says. The problem with all this chest thumping war mongering hyperbole is that there isn't one shred of evidence that Iran is even seeking nuclear weapons, let alone building any. There's been no breech of the NNPT. You can talk all kinds of shit about Ahmadinejad, but Iran hasn't changed their Constitution, & he's term limited. He's gone at the end of this one. As for crazy: Y'all were perfectly willing to have a woman who doesn't know the difference between smart & ignorant sitting one fibrulation from the Oval Office, or some loony birther with a combover be your standard bearer. Iran hasn't enriched anything more than what's needed to fuel the 2 power plants they were building on the coast. The Russians pulled out of their deal, so I guess they'll have to cut a new deal with China to build the main reactors. They can probably finish the main construction on the containments themselves. Experts? You mean pundits. There's a difference. As for sanctions: Iran's been under some kind of sanction or another for over 30 years now. They don't know anything but sanctions, so there's no reason for them to care about these latest ones either. There won't be another Shah. The Pahlavi family is done, no matter which other countries recognize them as Iran's "rulers".

[Stavros]

Iraq is as stable as any nation in the region, that credit goes to Bush. You can't have it both ways dude. You think it's chaos now...wait until the madman has his hands on the red button. So....I ask you again....please explain what Barry's policy with respect to Iran is. You'd make a great Obama campagn manager. You never answered the question, and all roads lead to Bush. If in the next year Iran announces it actually has a weapon and the means to deliver it, and begins threatening Israel.....what will you use as a defense of Barry then> Blame Bush?

Four days ago ABC commenting on the trial in absentia of Tariq al-Hashemi reported:
Iraq's fugitive Sunni vice president was sentenced Sunday to death by hanging on charges he masterminded death squads against rivals in a terror trial that has fueled sectarian tensions in the country. Underscoring the instability, insurgents unleashed an onslaught of bombings and shootings across Iraq, killing at least 92 people in one of the deadliest days this year.
It's unlikely that the attacks in 13 cities were all timed to coincide with the afternoon verdict that capped a monthslong case against Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, a longtime foe of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Still, taken together, the violence and verdict could energize Sunni insurgents bent on returning Iraq to the brink of civil war by targeting Shiites and undermining the government.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/bombing-iraq-kills-police-recruits-17193591#.UFGgiaPXqSo


Even by the standard of the Middle East Iraq is unstable (compare Iraq to Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, even Saudi Arabia); apart from the bombings in just one week noted above, there has yet to be a resolution to the conflict between the government in Baghdad and the goverment of Iraqi Kurdistan over the awarding of contracts to foreign oil companies in the North.



Regime change is not much different from 'Revolution from Above'; Bush and Blair were given briefing papers by experts on Iraq (not all of them tired left-wing apostles) pointing out that a democratic Iraq would elect a Shi'a majority govt every time for the foreseeable future, that the autonomy the Kurds have enjoyed since the 1990s is not going to be relinquished; that Shi'a Muslims in Iraq don't want union with Iran but that relations between the two will improve to Iran's advantage. I was told by someone well-placed to know that such briefing papers in London were binned either before they crossed Blair's desk, or as soon as they did: he has never hidden his lack of interest in history, and anyway believed after Northern Ireland that he was fated to be the man who changed it.
Yes, had Saddam died and had Iraq been plunged into discord many of the things we have seen might have happened, but we can't know that: but we do know what happened, and we also know how Paul Bremer III ran Iraq and it was a world away from the way the British ran Palestine, TransJordan -and yes, Iraq, the country that it invented in 1921.


Obama's position is classic political rhetoric -he cannot back up his position with anything practical other than the sanctions which this round have only been in place for a few months and have yet to take full effect. He cannot really deliver on his promise to bring to justice the killers of Ambassador Stevens.



The position taken by Kenneth Waltz is that deterrence is the key to maintaining peace between nuclear-armed antagonists, pointing up Pakistan and India as an example -India did not threaten nuclear retaliation against Pakistan after the Mumbai atrocities. Rogue elements were going to be the fall-out from the end of the USSR, but it never happened, the 'dirty bomb' never materialised. It was Pakistan, the USA's ally in South Asia that exported knowledge to Iran, Libya and North Korea just as the USA declined to 'punish' Pakistan for doing so because the 'War on Terror' was more important.


Yet the key issue agitating minds now, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is based on pure politics, the arguments that Nuclear Energy is a long-term necessity as an energy source in countries where petroleum resources will decline over the next 50-100 years, should be a social and economic one as well. The alternative, a nuclear-free Middle East, not only assumes Israel would de-nuclearise, but that energy sources for consumers, industry and the military will be met from non-nuclear sources.



If you are in any office of planning in a Middle East capital, and looking 50 or 100 years ahead, the resource deficits in the Middle East, in water, in arable land, in money-making petroleum (oil and gas production and refining), in sustainable coastlines, is frightening.


Resource management: to me this remains the key issue in the Middle East, as it is everywhere else.

[Prospero]

Excellent post Stavros. I agree on every point. And I had not heard before that these briefing papers were "binned before they reached Blair." Very interesting.

[Stavros]

I was told this by an eminent academic with excellent contacts 'on the inside', he is not the kind of man who likes spin either. I also am aware of a group of Middle East specialists from the UK who were invited to talk over Iraq with Jack Straw either before or after Easter in 2003, for all the good it did. When Straw later expressed surprise at the intensity of the insurgency, I had to wonder if he was deaf or just plain stupid, but having once invited him to a Labour Party meeting in the 1980s when I was aiming to become part of the machine, I know he is intelligent enough, but that his ambitions enable him to say and hear the right things at the right time to suit his career (these days, his 'legacy'), his pathetic response to his ignorance/impotence over Hillsborough when Labour was in office being the latest version, I actually had to turn the radio off I felt sick hearing his voice.

On Iraq the decision had been made by Blair in 2002, possibly after 9/11 in 2001 but maybe not a clear decision (more of the 'something must be done' thought); there was no persuading Blair against it; there was no detailed discussion in Cabinet; there was no interest in the insurgency of 1920, no interest in the antiquities of Iraq or the minorities of that country, and above all no serious planning for the aftermath of regime change; Blair was and remains a man focused on results: show me a problem, and we will find a solution is pretty much his stance on most things, just as his 'problem-solving' last week with xStrata. It is in fact a brilliant political strategy, if it works. I don't know how much Blair knew about the Project for a New American Century, and the extent to which Iraq was to be the beginning of an American-led democratic revolution from above in the Middle East; it has been argued that he wanted Britain to be part of these theatres -Afghanistan and Iraq- because he thought it would be dangerous for the USA to be seen to be going it alone, and because he wanted the UK to be positioned to take advantage of the spoils of war. In the case of Iraq, the desperate need to overhaul a clapped out oil industry was always going to be one of the prizes for BP, Shell, and Exxon; in Afghanistan Britain and the US have -or appear to have- missed the bus on mineral contracts, although there is still time to get ink on one's fingers. But then politics is a messy business anyway; if it isn't ink on contracts, its blood on the hands.

[broncofan]

I've got to disagree with the argument that countries having nuclear weapons somehow makes people safer. First of all the region would be much safer if Israel would disarm. But failing that, Iran developing nuclear weapons may reduce the risk of conflict but increase the stakes if there is an escalation.

The issue of Iran needing nuclear energy is a red herring. They should be able to develop their nuclear program, just agree to inspections to the extent that it is clear they are not weaponizing it. If they had no intention whatsoever to weaponize their nuclear program it is unlikely they would see the benefit of dodging inspections when the sanctions have cost them billions of dollars.

The precedent that we have for M.A.D is a dubious one. Nukes were first detonated a mere 70 years ago. Yes, the only usage in live conflict was in Japan. But based on that short history it seems pretty unsound to base the conclusion that countries will always make the rational choice as long as the stakes are high enough. BTW, I am not sure if the international community has the will to do anything about the appalling situation in North Korea. I know for a fact that even if they did have before N.K went nuclear they certainly will not do anything now.

Further, yes India may not have threatened to use nuclear weapons after the Mumbai attacks. Israel did not use nuclear weapons after scud missiles were sent into Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War. Can we be sure that every country, no matter what stage in the life cycle of their current regime will make that decision?

Adding countries to the list of nations with nukes is no way to remedy the inequity of some countries having them and others not. Well actually it fixes the equity problem just not the potential apocalypse problem.

Citing the history of post-atomic peace sounds a bit like an insurance company bragging about its actuarial practices at the end of the first fiscal year.

[broncofan]

BTW, my previous post (bottom of the last page) is not to address the issue of whether it is fair to let Iran have them or what the right policy is. I just have real questions about the reasoning behind M.A.D. I don't think there is a very good empirical sample.

My question is, does any country developing nukes really make us safer in the long run? What happens to the ability of the international community to intervene so as to prevent a genocide or humanitarian crisis when a country has nukes? What happens to the potential to use them as tools of coercion or to flout international standards? Again we can always point our fingers at the nuclear powers and say, it's unfair that some have them and others do not. But is the remedy for that problem to expand access?

[yodajazz]

Iraq is as stable as any nation in the region, that credit goes to Bush. Do you actually seriously believe that!!!! You are living in fucking cloud cuckoo land OMK

While I fundamentally disagree with OMK, on most issues, I would have to give Bush II big credit in helping Iran. 1. He removed Iran's biggest threat/competitor; a Saddam Hussien controlled Iraq. 2. The results of having a foreign enemy, the US armed forces so close, help to enable Iran's leadership to solidify their power, based on fear, of the US threat. Prior to that more moderate forces were in Iran's leadership. Iran has a large young population, whose natural tendencies would be towards, freedom and away from restricting religious domination.

[NYBURBS]

I've got to disagree with the argument that countries having nuclear weapons somehow makes people safer. First of all the region would be much safer if Israel would disarm. But failing that, Iran developing nuclear weapons may reduce the risk of conflict but increase the stakes if there is an escalation.

The issue of Iran needing nuclear energy is a red herring. They should be able to develop their nuclear program, just agree to inspections to the extent that it is clear they are not weaponizing it. If they had no intention whatsoever to weaponize their nuclear program it is unlikely they would see the benefit of dodging inspections when the sanctions have cost them billions of dollars.

The precedent that we have for M.A.D is a dubious one. Nukes were first detonated a mere 70 years ago. Yes, the only usage in live conflict was in Japan. But based on that short history it seems pretty unsound to base the conclusion that countries will always make the rational choice as long as the stakes are high enough. BTW, I am not sure if the international community has the will to do anything about the appalling situation in North Korea. I know for a fact that even if they did have before N.K went nuclear they certainly will not do anything now.

Further, yes India may not have threatened to use nuclear weapons after the Mumbai attacks. Israel did not use nuclear weapons after scud missiles were sent into Tel Aviv during the first Gulf War. Can we be sure that every country, no matter what stage in the life cycle of their current regime will make that decision?

Adding countries to the list of nations with nukes is no way to remedy the inequity of some countries having them and others not. Well actually it fixes the equity problem just not the potential apocalypse problem.

Citing the history of post-atomic peace sounds a bit like an insurance company bragging about its actuarial practices at the end of the first fiscal year.

It might not be a guarantee against future use, but going to war every time a nation attempts to gain the technology is unrealistic. The genie has been out of the bottle for a while now, it was only a matter of time before more nations acquired them. If I were Iran I'd sure as hell want one, it's a working insurance policy against invasion.

[NYBURBS]

BTW, my previous post (bottom of the last page) is not to address the issue of whether it is fair to let Iran have them or what the right policy is. I just have real questions about the reasoning behind M.A.D. I don't think there is a very good empirical sample.

My question is, does any country developing nukes really make us safer in the long run? What happens to the ability of the international community to intervene so as to prevent a genocide or humanitarian crisis when a country has nukes? What happens to the potential to use them as tools of coercion or to flout international standards? Again we can always point our fingers at the nuclear powers and say, it's unfair that some have them and others do not. But is the remedy for that problem to expand access?

I didn't see this until after I posted. Actually, I'd say that the fact they have not been used since a second nation obtained them is pretty good evidence of the soundness of the M.A.D. doctrine. If not for the deterrence effect of these weapons, there would have probably been a 3rd World War by now, and imagine how many would die in another "conventional" war on a global scale (given the destructive power of modern technology, likely hundred of millions of people). In the long term, as human beings we need to find some better way of resolving our issues because eventually some loon will think they can win using a first strike, but I've seen nothing to indicate that the Iranians would be the ones to go there (in all honesty, the North Koreans having nukes worries me far more than the Iranians having them).

[broncofan]

I didn't see this until after I posted. Actually, I'd say that the fact they have not been used since a second nation obtained them is pretty good evidence of the soundness of the M.A.D. doctrine. If not for the deterrence effect of these weapons, there would have probably been a 3rd World War by now, and imagine how many would die in another "conventional" war on a global scale (given the destructive power of modern technology, likely hundred of millions of people). In the long term, as human beings we need to find some better way of resolving our issues because eventually some loon will think they can win using a first strike, but I've seen nothing to indicate that the Iranians would be the ones to go there (in all honesty, the North Koreans having nukes worries me far more than the Iranians having them).
But if I remember, you're more or less an isolationist. The North Koreans have starved thousands and thousands of people to death and have in fact threatened their neighbors with the weapons. We can't do anything about it nor can the international community because of their nukes.

North Korea at least is a police state without any chance of a successful rebellion by the people. It will be very interesting to see how the Iranian regime responds to an existential threat from within when they have nuclear weapons. What would Al Assad be doing right now with nukes? How about Qaddafi? What about Saddam when he was expelled from Kuwait launching scud missiles into Tel Aviv. What would this desperate man who murdered over a hundred thousands Kurds have done with nukes? You might say we would not have expelled him from Kuwait and just allowed it to be annexed. I don't really see that as reassuring.

It's of course not really practical to use on your own people when you are trying to maintain power but do you think any other country would have been involved in such humanitarian crises if some of these unstable countries had nukes? The answer is no and in the case of genocide within a country there would also be no international response.

As far as a 70 year period of no nuclear weapons, there is nothing convincing about it. Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The entire fate of the world hung in the balance. You're literally citing the failure of that to materialize into an apocalypse as a source of optimism. Even without nuclear weapons The Soviet Union and the U.S engaged in dozens of proxy wars with millions dead. Yes, they were not always Americans or Soviets but the loss of life was tragic.

We cannot go to war every time there is a country on the threshold of having nukes. True, but I disagree that Iran has not indicated they would be the first to go there. There has been a lot of fruitless and pointless arguments over the translation of Ahmadinejad's comments about Israel and whether he wants it to disappear from the map or has stated the means by which it should happen. But the stance of Iran with respect to providing material support to Hezbollah and actually supporting the disappearance shall we say of another state if we cannot say destruction is in fact some reason for concern.

[broncofan]

If I were Iran I'd sure as hell want one, it's a working insurance policy against invasion.
I've heard this before. It strikes me as incredibly circular. Threats to Iran are conditioned on them trying to obtain nukes. The answer is that the threats will stop if they get nukes? What if they stopped trying to develop them when they have suffered sanctions upward of billions of dollars to their economy? Might that not prevent an invasion?

The more important question is why as an American you'd want them to get nukes? If it's an insurance policy against invasion it's also an insurance policy against a revolution if they continue to rig elections. It would be an insurance policy against doing anything about them sponsoring terrorism or sponsoring wholesale murder of their own people if the dominance of the regime were threatened. I'm always amazed at how nimble people are when it comes to thinking about what they would want if they were an Iranian Ayatollah. Why would they want nukes when the effort to obtain them has caused their alienation from the international community, and an isolated economy? The answer to that question is actually why it is dangerous for them to have it. Their regime values having a nuclear bomb more than a strong economy or being part of the global community and the sanctions test those priorities.

[Prospero]

MAD (mutually assured destruction) held because the power blocs who had the capacity to annihilate each other's populations generally shared a common underlying philosophy. MAD would not apply if there were weapons in the hands of religious extremists such as the present rulers of iran who have an apocalyptic view of the future. Ahmadinijad genuinely believes in a brand of Shi'ism that is based upon a violent and apocalyptic struggle before the return of the "messiah" in their case the hidden or occluded 12th imam who will usher in a period of peace as islam vanquishes all its enemies. So nuclear war would be a tasty way of bringing in Paradise (and in this respect it echoes the fundamentalist Christian belief in the sort of conflict outlined in Revelations). So Iran should be prevented from getting the weapons. No question about that.

Here is an article that says more about this particularly worrying brand of Shi'ism.

Ahmadinejad’s Apocalyptic Faith
By: Patrick Poole
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, August 17, 2006


When Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes recently sat down in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an interview, perhaps the most important questions were the ones that went unasked. They talked about Hezbollah, nuclear weapons, Israel and President Bush, but the one question that ties all of these together in Ahmadinejad’s mind is his religious faith. It is the prism through which he views all of these other policy issues, which is why it is of singular importance to understand the ideology that drives this man. This was apparently lost on Mike Wallace.
No one can accuse Ahmadinejad of being circumspect about the religious views that shape his worldview. He speaks on those views quite frequently, but they are a taboo subject for Westerners unaccustomed to thinking that is self-consciously religious. The reactionary response is to dismiss it as mental instability or label it as “fundamentalist”, but facing the reality of a nuclear Iran, such a reaction is not only short-sighted and narrow minded, but possibly suicidal.

Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.

This personal belief directs his official policies as President. He has publicly said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We should define our economic, cultural and political policies on the policy of the Imam Mahdi’s return.”

However, Ahmadinejad’s messianism doesn’t stop with the Mahdi. In fact, he has made it clear that he believes he has personally received a divine appointment to herald the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, tacitly acknowledging his own role in setting aright the problems of the world.

His belief in a personal divine appointment was best confirmed after his speech to the United Nations last September, which was laden with references to the Mahdi. Upon his return to Iran, he met with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, where the two discussed an alleged paranormal occurrence while Ahmadinejad spoke wherein he related to the cleric:

On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!

As the recipient of this divine appointment, he not only a leading actor in what he believes is a divine drama taking place on the world stage, but it also feeds the Gnostic elitism inherent in Hojjatieh ideology. Not only are his acts reflective of divine inspiration, they are also above questioning. As an interview back in May with Der Spiegel, while talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this “populist” makes clear his lack of enthusiasm for popular sovereignty:

It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice.

Another part of his divine mission is confronting infidel world leaders and inviting them to accept Islam – a necessary step in Islamic warfare before attacking an opponent. In May, Ahmadinejad sent President Bush an 18-page letter calling for a change in the Bush Administration’s foreign polices and challenging him to embrace Islam. A similar letter was sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch immediately recognized Ahmadinejad’s letter as a call to accept Islam – an opinion that Ahmadinejad later confirmed – that contextualized his respective letters as a pretext for future military confrontation and escalation.

Referring to his letter in his 60 Minutes interview, Ahmadinejad made it clear that rejection of his personal invitation to Islam would invite personal destruction for President Bush:

Please give him this message, sir. Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate.

The confrontational approach taken by Ahmadinejad colors his official decision-making as President of the Islamic Republic. The kidnapping of the Israeli solider by Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, resulted in the conflict between Israel and the terrorist organization that has killed more than a thousand people in Lebanon and Israel and displaced more than a million citizens in both countries. This provocative act by Hezbollah had to have the approval of Ahmadinejad and reflects the belligerence that marks virtually all of his policies related to the Middle East region and Iran’s relations with the West.

But it is the apocalyptic element to Ahmadinejad’s faith combined with Iran’s nuclear ambitions that should draw the most serious attention. He believes that a great cataclysm of bloodshed anticipates the return of the 12th Imam, in particular the destruction of infidels – Jews and Christians – that will usher in a new dawn of Islamic worldwide dominance.

With Israel in range of Iranian missiles, he has promised to “wipe Israel off the map”. Here Ahmadinejad draws from what Andrew Bostom recently identified as a theological current within the broader confines of Islam that holds that the destruction of the Jews will inaugurate the appearance of the Mahdi. Other Hojjatieh ideologues, such as one of Ayatollah Yazdi’s chief students, Mohsen Ghorourian, have openly advocated the use of nuclear weapons to assert Iranian/Islamic preeminence over Israel and the West.

In recent weeks Islam scholars have noted how Ahmadinejad’s selection of August 22nd to respond to the UN’s demand to cease the Iranian uranium enrichment program has roots in Quranic mythology. On July 27th, Robert Spencer wrote for FrontPage that this date corresponds to Muhammed’s “Night Journey” and ascension into heaven recounted in Islamic lore. Two weeks later, noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis reitterated these same concerns about the date chosen by Ahmadinejad’s government to respond to the UN’s demands. Could a nuclear event or other terrorist attacks directed against Israel, the West, or both, by Iran deliberately timed to coincide to utilize the perceived power of Islamic myth be in store? The scenario is not far-fetched.

Some commentators have dismissed the notion that Iran might launch an attack that would precipitate a catastrophic response from Israel and the US, relying on the Cold War logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But yet again, the religious ideology that permeates the mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely important to understand.

The whole structure of Shiite belief is built around a cult of martyrdom that assumes lethal retribution by the infidels against the true believers for their righteous conduct. Ahmadinejad constantly utilizes the Shiite images and slogans relating to martyrdom, as can be seen in his comments this past February in a speech reported by the IRNA:

We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society. Culture of martyrdom-seeking is our most effective weapon and best guarantee for our national security. Ruthless enemies who have a chronic enmity against our country and our nation have not succeeded in achieving their objectives so far thanks to the existence of this culture of martyrdom-seeking among our nation. He who is ready for martyrdom is always victorious. Martyrdom is the peak of mankind's perfection and the martyrs enjoy the highest status of humanity in this world and the Hereafter. People spend tough years of strenuous work in a bid to achieve the peaks of grandeur and pride, while our dear martyrs achieved those high peaks in shortest possible time.

An attack launched by Israel or the US that would kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians would only serve to confirm the self-fulfilling prophecy of Shiite martyrdom and vindicate Ahmadinejad’s suicidal policies. In his mind, an apocalyptic act of self-initiated martyrdom unparalleled in Islamic history would undoubtedly serve to jump start the arrival of the Mahdi. In his religious calculus, the use of nuclear weapons is a win-win scenario. Such actions are not only entirely appropriate, but divinely sanctioned and wholly justified by the messianic and apocalyptic elements that Ahmadinejad and his ideological allies have attached to the Shiite martyrdom mythology.

We should then seriously consider the practical consequences of Ahmadinejad’s religious worldview and ask how this knowledge should help shape our foreign policy with regards to Iran and their nuclear ambitions. The political leaders in the West should understand that the Shiite and Hojjatieh beliefs play an integral role in shaping Ahmadinejad’s understanding of reality.

When he says that Iran’s nuclear development program are peaceful, he really means it. He has in mind the universal Islamic peace that will be established with the return of the Mahdi, and if rivers of infidel blood have to be shed to accomplish it, his religious faith leads him to understand that such is part of the divine plan. That is the way that ultimate “peace” will finally be achieved. And when he states that Israel will be “wiped off the map”, he unshakably believes that as well because it has been crafted into the overall religious narrative that guides his policies.

Because of this, we should understand that there is no negotiating position acceptable to them except for the complete and unconditional submission of the non-Muslim world to the rule of shari’a. Diplomacy is a vain illusion when dealing with adherents of this apocalyptic worldview. They have constructed an ideology where the most extreme actions on their part are not only justified, but divinely sanctioned; and all retributive responses by the “infidels” accounted for.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands at the fringe of Iranian politics (which should illustrate how relative a term as “fringe” can actually be). Most hard line clerics do not share his vision and he is opposed by some of the leading politicians in Iran, like former President Rafsanjani. Our response should exploit those divisions. But that can only be done if we are relentless in constantly checking every move that Ahmadinejad makes. He cannot be allowed even the slightest victory. Allowing him any breathing room or agreeing to any concessions is fraught with extreme peril. A persistent escalation of hostilities between Iran and the US may force the hard line clerics to deal with Ahmadinejad on their own out of sheer self-preservation.

In conclusion, this brief examination has been intended to demonstrate that current Iranian policy is designed to vindicate the self-fulfilling prophecy of Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic and messianic beliefs. This highlights that regardless of what West chooses to believe, we are in a religious war and we must fight it as such. At some point, we will be forced to take actions designed to shake their faith – a prospect that will not be well met by the postmodern pluralistic forces in the West. But the West and Israel is not the only one threatened: the Islamic world itself, Sunni and Shiite alike, is held hostage by this extremist religious ideology. When the day of reckoning comes for Iran, may our leaders fully understand the religious dimensions of the threat and have the nerve to do what is needed to protect our interests and security in both the short and long term. In this battle, there will be no substitute for victory.

[broncofan]

Fascinating article^^^^

To me, there is a reasonable argument that the issue is presented in a dishonest way. When Bibi Netanyahu says that Iran is a threat to everyone or that we are all in the same boat he is doing what he has made a political career out of doing. He's lying and what's more galling about it is he is doing so in a way that is a flagrant attempt to influence our political process. It is not very easy to untangle the interests here, but it is pretty easy to see that Israel is in a fundamentally different position than the U.S and Netanyahu is trying to import his reasoning processes onto other leaders. NYBURBS I thought made a good point when he said what he thought he would want if he were Iranian. It made me realize how different the reaction naturally should be, and how the influence of the rest of the world should in turn change Iran's priorities.

Iran- If I were Iranian, in the absence of international pressure, I would want my country to be nuclear. It imparts a certain seriousness and prestige as well as a level of deference in international conflicts that money cannot buy. However, given the strong stance of the international community against the nuclear program, the billions of dollars of loss to their economy, the crippled state of their economy and alienation from the internnational community I cannot understand why they would want nukes. Unless of course they intend to adopt an extremely militaristic stance and to use them as tools of coercion and engage in brinksmanship with millions of lives in the balance. I would think it's unfair for Israel to have them, but self-destructive to continue their production given the externally imposed costs.

U.S- Iran getting nukes is no more dire a threat than Pakistan or North Korea getting them. Yet we have, at the behest of Israel's ungrateful leadership put out more diplomatic effort to prevent them from obtaining the weapons. We are less safe if Iran gets the weapons but only marginally so, since the threats relate to Iran adopting a different regional stance and engaging in more unchecked and subversive aggression underneath a nuclear blanket. It is simply not worth the effort or the cost, financially, politically, or militarily to engage in any sort of aggression against Iran or to in any way be embroiled in such a mess through Israel's actions.

Israel-Do anything in your power to stop them from getting nukes.

I think the extension of the M.A.D doctrine when you are dealing with dozens of nuclear parties and confusing multiparty conflicts is troublesome. Not only that, but we should consider what happened during the Cold War. From the little I've heard, the Soviet Union and the United States literally had automatic triggering mechanisms that would have not only destroyed each other but the entire inhabitable world under the wrong circumstances. Now, I am not an expert on how to use statistical evidence, but I know that there is literally no way we could have used this history as damning to M.A.D because there would be nobody left to argue. When you raise the stakes of a conflict, the use of force becomes more remote. When you are talking about total world annihilation (no exaggeration) how remote does it have to be to cite as a success? You should require it to be virtually impossible.

[Ben]

The true reason US fears Iranian nukes: they can deter US attacks

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham echoes a long line of US policymakers: Iran must not be allowed to deter US aggression

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/iran-nukes-deterrence