Israel Can't Afford to Bluff

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.

Let them do their own dirty work.

If Israel does it America will still be targeted in the backlash.

That’s because the US gives billions of dollars of “aid” to Israel.

Kind of like how if a country provided weapons to Al Qaeda wich were then used to attack the US on their own soil, that country would face a serious backlash.

“Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes”.

That is an over-simplification of it. The Iranians have beef with the US irregardless of Israel. There are American armies in two countries that border Iran. The Iranians can use proxies like Sadr or they can release from house arrest all the Alqaeda people they have. It is just not that hard to get at the US now. [/quote]

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

I will admit that I over-simplified the situation in order to make a point. Americas unwavering support for Israel is certainly one of the main reasons that the US is so hated throughout much of the Middle East.

62

[quote]Sifu wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Sifu wrote:

There is a difference negotiations like we had with the Iranians in Baghdad recently and presidential level meetings like Obama is willing to give away. Presidential level meetings convey an importance to whoever is being met with and can enhance their status.

Nixon had negotiators like Kissinger meet with the North Vietnamese because we were fighting a war with them, he did not go himself.

Nixon went to China in order to restore relations with a country the size of the US with four four times the population and a nuclear arsenal, because it was a strategic counterweight to the Soviet Union.

Reagan negotiated with and then met with the Soviets because they were almost a match for us militarily. But the meetings were only after he had ordered and engaged in a massive build up of America’s military power that put him in a position of obvious superiority that the Soviets had to take notice of. Reagan scared the hell out of everyone including the North Koreans and Ayatollah Khomenei.

The bad guys were overjoyed when Regan offered to talk to them, but it was only after he had been in the white house long enough to establish himself as the the scariest MoFo on planet Earth.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about negotiating. When you are by far the stronger side, an unwillingness to talk is a negotiating position you can and should take. It is not stupidity to make the other guy acknowledge your superiority.

What is stupidity is being eager to talk when you obviously are much much stronger. It puts the ball in the other guys court where he can now be the one who refuses to talk until he gets something he wants.
[/quote]

Two things:

  1. This is a very different argument (the type/manner of negotiations) vs. the one you initially made, and to some extent I agree with you that Obama’s stance on presidential negotiations is naive.
  2. If things are going so well in Iraq, then we are negotiating from a position of strength with Iran there. Likewise, you can’t have it both ways on Iran. Either they are a serious threat to the Middle East and to us and thus can be negotiated with on the level (like Reagan and the Russians or Nixon and the Chinese) or they are an insignificant “rogue state” that should not be dignified with negotiations, and thus also one we should not be worried about, not to the point of contemplating military action with potentially huge aftereffects.

[quote]
Is obstinate “victory” talk on Iraq the be-all and end-all of “strength” these days? Even though the vast majority of the folks doing that kind of talking were MIA when we had a war forty years ago (Bush, Cheney, every older neocon you can think of - McCain is the honorable exception), while people like Chuck Hagel (face on fire in Vietnam), Max Cleland (lost what, three limbs?), Colin Powell (two tours I believe), Anthony Zinni (wounded in Vietnam), and Jim Webb (Navy Cross, knee torn up, etc.) had doubts about the invasion and the wisdom of staying? Funny how that works.

I’m not totally for pulling out of Iraq, and I do not like Obama at all, but I think the arguments advanced on both here are stupid.

Things are going our way in Iraq. Obama would sacrifice all that we have gained and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all for the sake of getting elected.

One important thing about getting out of Iraq that Obama never talks about is the cost in American lives of “pulling out”. As the numbers came down we would not be pulling out as much as we would have to fight our way out. We have over four thousand dead, imagine whatit would be like to be one of the last four thousand American soldiers retreating from an imploding Iraq. [/quote]

  1. Withdrawing from Iraq would not be very bloody, although it would be costly (just like getting in in the first place). The American Conservative covered this a couple issues back:
    http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_19/article3.html

  2. The issue isn’t as much the situation on the ground in Iraq, which is better, but still very questionable medium and long-term. It’s an issue of what it’s doing to the U.S. military, particularly the Army, on recruiting and retention, as well as the opportunity cost in Afghanistan, which is getting worse.

63

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
You know there’s a long history of people over estimating almost everything in regard to these middle eastern dictatorships. They talk trash like pros but when the wheel hits the road they have nothing to back it all up.

It’s quite possible Israel could wipe out a key part of their nuclear fuel cycle (setting them back years) and not lose a single aircraft and there might be no backlash at all.

Israel took out Syria’s nuclear reactor last year? and there was total silence. The Syrians didn’t say anything about it because it was embarrassing. And Syria and Israel are next door to each other.

And how would Iran retaliate?
[/quote]

Hezbollah, Hamas possibly.

Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

That may be. But given the state of oil supplies and the global economy, I tend to doubt it.

64

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…[/quote]

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

65

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?[/quote]

Fundamentally this position depends on the notion that the Iranian raison d’etre is to kill Americans/Israelis and that terrorism is the end rather than the means.

Instead a look at the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence.

66

[quote]etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

Fundamentally this position depends on the notion that the Iranian raison d’etre is to kill Americans/Israelis and that terrorism is the end rather than the means.

Instead a look at the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence. [/quote]

They have never had the power to be more than a bit player. Nukes would give them the power to erase Israel.

This is a game changer.

67

Just a little perspective (and probably what Israel sees):

Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal of Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Devices.

All they need is enough fissionable material, to put into a shell of very low efficiency, that Hamas and/or Hezboallah would be more than happy to lob into Israel. (Remember that Israel is shelled on almost a daily basis already).

The threat is VERY palpable and real to Israel.

Mufasa

68

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just a little perspective (and probably what Israel sees):

Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal of Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Devices.

All they need is enough fissionable material, to put into a shell of very low efficiency, that Hamas and/or Hezboallah would be more than happy to lob into Israel. (Remember that Israel is shelled on almost a daily basis already).

The threat is VERY palpable and real to Israel.

Mufasa[/quote]

Yep. The only way to deal with maniacs like the Iranians is to bomb them with overwhelming ferocity. Let them know that anything like they’re contemplating means that Tehran is toast. The only way to kill hornets is to destroy the nest. Burn the nest, and the sooner the better.

Glad to see that you’re finally figuring it out, bro! You don’t bring a fly swatter to a gang fight.

69

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Just a little perspective (and probably what Israel sees):

Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal of Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Devices.

All they need is enough fissionable material, to put into a shell of very low efficiency, that Hamas and/or Hezboallah would be more than happy to lob into Israel. (Remember that Israel is shelled on almost a daily basis already).

The threat is VERY palpable and real to Israel.

Mufasa[/quote]

The threat is very real if you think, contrary to three decades of history, that Iran is run by utter fanatics who are looking for an excuse to die.

Leaving aside the fact that Iran would be very unlikely to hand a nuke to a proxy, even one it has significant power over. Too much can go wrong.

70

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?[/quote]

So the “2% Solution”, where if there is a small chance that anyone can harm us, we have to go after them with military force? Perpetual war for perpetual peace, there’s a recipe for the ruination of America.

71

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Just a little perspective (and probably what Israel sees):

Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal of Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Devices.

All they need is enough fissionable material, to put into a shell of very low efficiency, that Hamas and/or Hezboallah would be more than happy to lob into Israel. (Remember that Israel is shelled on almost a daily basis already).

The threat is VERY palpable and real to Israel.

Mufasa

The threat is very real if you think, contrary to three decades of history, that Iran is run by utter fanatics who are looking for an excuse to die.

Leaving aside the fact that Iran would be very unlikely to hand a nuke to a proxy, even one it has significant power over. Too much can go wrong.[/quote]

Another lib who is beginning to understand the pure evil we face. Only if you stamp out the cockroaches do you eliminate the threat they pose.

Cool! Welcome aboard, G!!

72

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

So the “2% Solution”, where if there is a small chance that anyone can harm us, we have to go after them with military force? Perpetual war for perpetual peace, there’s a recipe for the ruination of America.[/quote]

2%? I think if Iran builds nukes there is much larger chance that they (or their proxies) will use them. The devastation they can cause will be horrific.

I do not know if a military attack is the best option but I think we need stronger sanctions against Iran. Unfortunately much of the world doesn’t care. China will buy oil and trade with the most villanous people in the world.

Pretending the threat is minimal is a recipe for disaster. The debate should be what to do about it, not if the threat exists.

73

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Israel’s message is simple: If you don’t, we will.

Let them do their own dirty work.

If Israel does it America will still be targeted in the backlash.

That’s because the US gives billions of dollars of “aid” to Israel.

Kind of like how if a country provided weapons to Al Qaeda wich were then used to attack the US on their own soil, that country would face a serious backlash.

“Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes”.

That is an over-simplification of it. The Iranians have beef with the US irregardless of Israel. There are American armies in two countries that border Iran. The Iranians can use proxies like Sadr or they can release from house arrest all the Alqaeda people they have. It is just not that hard to get at the US now.

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.
[/quote]

This time you have given a gross over-simplification. You are doing good.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.

Before Mossadegh was “democratically elected” Iran had another Prime Minister who was democratically elected, Sepahbod Haj Ali Razmara.

Razmara was assasinated by a member of the militant Islamic group Fadayan-e Islam. The Fedayan was controlled by the Ayatollah Kashani (Ayatollah Khomenei’s mentor).

Razmara’s successor, Mossadegh was the leader of the National Front, whose leading ally in Parliament was the assembly speaker, another National Front member, Ayatollah Kashani.

That is why I say the “democratically elected” arguement is an over simplification. It is easy to get “demcratically elected” when your supporters are assasinating everyone who stands in the way of your getting elected.

74

[quote]etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

Fundamentally this position depends on the notion that the Iranian raison d’etre is to kill Americans/Israelis and that terrorism is the end rather than the means.

Instead a look at the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence. [/quote]

You have got to be kidding. How was seizing the American embassy a rational move that enhanced Irans power and influence. It did the exact opposite. It pissed off their most powerful ally and arms supplier at a time when the Soviet Union (who had invaded Iran before) had rolled into neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq was looking to expand into Iran.

I don’t know how old you are but I was old enough back then to be able to remember that America was pisssed off and ready to go to war. That is how Reagan got elected. People thought Reagan would go to war, so did the Iranians.

During Reagans inauguration the news had to cut away from the inauguration to show the hostages coming off of the plane in Germany. The Iranians came within minutes of going to war with the US.

The loss of US support cost the Iranians dearly during the Iran Iraq war. The Iranian military under the Shah was powerful enough to delay an invasion by the Soviets long enough for US reinforcements to arrive. The Shahs army could have steamrolled over Iraq. Instead they fought an eight year stalemate with their former ally helping their enemy.

75

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

So the “2% Solution”, where if there is a small chance that anyone can harm us, we have to go after them with military force? Perpetual war for perpetual peace, there’s a recipe for the ruination of America.[/quote]

That is not at all true. When dictators see a trend of other dictators getting taken out when they try to challenge the US with nukes, they get with the program just like the Libyans and North Koreans.

77

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:

Not to mention the fact that the CIA previously helped to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran.

The overthrow of Mossadegh gets bandied about a lot on this board, especially by the Grand Mufti of Stockholm. It is taken as an article of faith that since he was “democratically elected” his overthrow was wrong. What never gets mentioned is how and why he was “democratically elected”.
[/quote]

You’re right that using the term “democratically elected” without explaining further is slightly misleading. My bad.

It’s not like the involvement of the CIA and the Brits in the overthrow was motivated by Mossadegh being a bad person though.

78

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Just a little perspective (and probably what Israel sees):

Iran doesn’t have to build an arsenal of Multi-Megaton Thermonuclear Devices.

All they need is enough fissionable material, to put into a shell of very low efficiency, that Hamas and/or Hezboallah would be more than happy to lob into Israel. (Remember that Israel is shelled on almost a daily basis already).

The threat is VERY palpable and real to Israel.

Mufasa

The threat is very real if you think, contrary to three decades of history, that Iran is run by utter fanatics who are looking for an excuse to die.

Leaving aside the fact that Iran would be very unlikely to hand a nuke to a proxy, even one it has significant power over. Too much can go wrong.

Another lib who is beginning to understand the pure evil we face. Only if you stamp out the cockroaches do you eliminate the threat they pose.

Cool! Welcome aboard, G!!

[/quote]

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

79

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

So the “2% Solution”, where if there is a small chance that anyone can harm us, we have to go after them with military force? Perpetual war for perpetual peace, there’s a recipe for the ruination of America.

2%? I think if Iran builds nukes there is much larger chance that they (or their proxies) will use them. The devastation they can cause will be horrific.

I do not know if a military attack is the best option but I think we need stronger sanctions against Iran. Unfortunately much of the world doesn’t care. China will buy oil and trade with the most villanous people in the world.

Pretending the threat is minimal is a recipe for disaster. The debate should be what to do about it, not if the threat exists.[/quote]

I was off a little, was referring to the “1% Doctrine”, Ron Suskind wrote a book about it:

Again, haven’t we been through this before? Remember Saddam’s yellowcake, bioweapons, nuclear program…Without dredging up that whole debate, you’d think people would learn to be a lot more cautious about government claims. Although we should have learned that lesson with the Tonkin Gulf Incident, or better yet, even centuries earlier.

As for minimizing the threat…sometimes the best action is inaction. Strange but true. And as you seemed to be leaning toward saying, if the rest of the world, or at least China and Russia, will trade with Iran anyway, our options are limited.

80

[quote]Sifu wrote:
etaco wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Exactly. So tell me again why we are so worried about a third-rate, decaying Middle Eastern state? Didn’t we go through this song and dance five years ago?

…

Because they are trying to build nukes. We know that the Islamic world is full of suicidal maniacs that would be more than happy to set one off in NYC.

Why take chances with people that routinely march in parades demanding “Death to America”?

Fundamentally this position depends on the notion that the Iranian raison d’etre is to kill Americans/Israelis and that terrorism is the end rather than the means.

Instead a look at the history of this regime over the past couple decades shows behavior that, though quarrelsome, is instrumentally rational within a framework of fairly conventional goals, e.g. the enhancement of power and influence.

You have got to be kidding. How was seizing the American embassy a rational move that enhanced Irans power and influence. It did the exact opposite. It pissed off their most powerful ally and arms supplier at a time when the Soviet Union (who had invaded Iran before) had rolled into neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq was looking to expand into Iran.

I don’t know how old you are but I was old enough back then to be able to remember that America was pisssed off and ready to go to war. That is how Reagan got elected. People thought Reagan would go to war, so did the Iranians.

During Reagans inauguration the news had to cut away from the inauguration to show the hostages coming off of the plane in Germany. The Iranians came within minutes of going to war with the US.

The loss of US support cost the Iranians dearly during the Iran Iraq war. The Iranian military under the Shah was powerful enough to delay an invasion by the Soviets long enough for US reinforcements to arrive. The Shahs army could have steamrolled over Iraq. Instead they fought an eight year stalemate with their former ally helping their enemy.[/quote]

So you’re equating taking (and eventually repatriating) hostages from the patron state of the ruler you just overthrew with knowingly choosing nuclear annihilation for yourself, everyone you know, and tens of millions of your countrymen? Those are roughly equivalent?

You also seem kind of ill-informed on Iran-Contra.