What are the US and Israel really afraid of in Iran?
October 6, 2004 10:16 PM Subscribe
Marvelous use of the title attribute, y2karl. I like this format much better. That said, I find the article poorly written and nonsensical.
[Iran feels] that there is no moral reason why Iran is less entitled to nuclear weapons than these countries.
So Iran's #1 reason for building a nuclear program is a sense of moral entitlement? A global 'keeping up with the Jones's?' Somehow I doubt Iran's reasoning is that simple. In any case, his point seems to be, at least to me, that if Iran gets a nice nuke program, then everyone will want a nice nuke program, so at this point I will second what jfuller said.
The question, however, is therefore what?
Despite being an awful sentence; exactly.
posted by sciurus at 4:25 AM on October 7, 2004
[Iran feels] that there is no moral reason why Iran is less entitled to nuclear weapons than these countries.
So Iran's #1 reason for building a nuclear program is a sense of moral entitlement? A global 'keeping up with the Jones's?' Somehow I doubt Iran's reasoning is that simple. In any case, his point seems to be, at least to me, that if Iran gets a nice nuke program, then everyone will want a nice nuke program, so at this point I will second what jfuller said.
The question, however, is therefore what?
Despite being an awful sentence; exactly.
posted by sciurus at 4:25 AM on October 7, 2004
The problems in Iran, as in many other trouble spots in the world today, can directly attributed blowback from previous illegal/extralegal CIA operations in those countries.
posted by nofundy at 4:52 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by nofundy at 4:52 AM on October 7, 2004
So Iran's #1 reason for building a nuclear program is a sense of moral entitlement? A global 'keeping up with the Jones's?'
He wrote:
The Iranian logic is rather simple. There are now at least eight nuclear powers in the world. At least six of them are militarily nearby - Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and of course the United States. They feel that there is no moral reason why Iran is less entitled to nuclear weapons than these countries. And, as long as Iran does not have such weapons, they believe that its political and military position in the region is limited.
And grammatical pickiness aside, there is not much to dispute with the following:
The Pentagon doesn't have the personnel. The U.S. doesn't have the money. And, if Iraq is difficult to occupy, Iran would be ten times more difficult...
An occupation of a coalition of one, mind you. No one is happy about the idea of Iran going nuclear but, as with the case of North Korea, there is not much of a military solution available, with all our eggs already broken making the current Iraqi omelet. Where there were no nuclear weapons. Period.
posted by y2karl at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2004
He wrote:
The Iranian logic is rather simple. There are now at least eight nuclear powers in the world. At least six of them are militarily nearby - Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and of course the United States. They feel that there is no moral reason why Iran is less entitled to nuclear weapons than these countries. And, as long as Iran does not have such weapons, they believe that its political and military position in the region is limited.
And grammatical pickiness aside, there is not much to dispute with the following:
The Pentagon doesn't have the personnel. The U.S. doesn't have the money. And, if Iraq is difficult to occupy, Iran would be ten times more difficult...
An occupation of a coalition of one, mind you. No one is happy about the idea of Iran going nuclear but, as with the case of North Korea, there is not much of a military solution available, with all our eggs already broken making the current Iraqi omelet. Where there were no nuclear weapons. Period.
posted by y2karl at 6:47 AM on October 7, 2004
Okay, help me through this here. I am interpreting the article as an indictment of Iran's nuclear policy. It seems to me that you are coming at it more as an indictment of the US mindset in regard to nuclear proliferation, especially in regard to Middle Eastern nations.
Is this on the right track? Because I agree with you, we can't do a supposedly simple war correctly, especially considering how much it has strained US resources; so there is no way we can be expected to do be successful involving ourselves in another war with a more organized and powerful nation. I just think his reasoning for Iranian motives could be posited a bit better.
posted by sciurus at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2004
Is this on the right track? Because I agree with you, we can't do a supposedly simple war correctly, especially considering how much it has strained US resources; so there is no way we can be expected to do be successful involving ourselves in another war with a more organized and powerful nation. I just think his reasoning for Iranian motives could be posited a bit better.
posted by sciurus at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2004
Yes, every swingin' dick (or extremist nation, however you like) should have nukes. That way the world will be a safer place.
posted by eas98 at 7:08 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by eas98 at 7:08 AM on October 7, 2004
When Iran's enemies have nuclear weapons, having nuclear weapons of its own levels the field by limiting the threats said enemies can make upon it and actions they can take against its allies. There's no difficulty understanding that. A democratic, secular Iran would make the same calculation, I suspect.
posted by y2karl at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2004
posted by y2karl at 7:20 AM on October 7, 2004
Then I guess the main area where I think Wallerstein is going wrong is his assumption that Iran should base their decision on moral grounds rather than the calculated necessity that it is. Sure, they are a repressive theocracy, but arguing about the morality of another nation having nuclear capabilities when we are the ones who started the mess in the first place seems a bit off. I think they are doing it, to use your word, for calculated reasons.
It might seem to be just grammatical pickiness, but I'm getting the feeling that Wallerstein is advocating US morality against Iranian morality. And if that is what he is doing, then I think he should say so.
I guess that is a big derail though.
All nukes are bad nukes.
posted by sciurus at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
It might seem to be just grammatical pickiness, but I'm getting the feeling that Wallerstein is advocating US morality against Iranian morality. And if that is what he is doing, then I think he should say so.
I guess that is a big derail though.
All nukes are bad nukes.
posted by sciurus at 7:44 AM on October 7, 2004
Iran should be a major regional power. However, they are caught up in the old paradigm that a regional power must control and dominate its neighbors.
It reaches this conclusion in three ways: it wants to become the new Sultanate of all the Shiia; it wants to create a Moslem empire, or to be the dominant force in all of Islam; and it wants to become a major military power, controlling the Persian Gulf and to a lesser extent the Caspian Sea.
It requires nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbors, to menace or throw out any other world powers from the region, to control the world oil market by threatening Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and to threaten Israel.
Its methods are what is creating the greatest concern. It now rejects negotiation, even in petty arguments like the disputed islands in the Gulf with the UAE. On one hand, it obviously "plays for time", yet surrenders nothing in the long run, even "confidence building measures." It also does not speak with a single voice, but sends out disturbing mixed messages, which are terribly unnerving to the international community. It seems to now be directed as much by macho bravado as by any sane policy strategy.
Within the last few days, news has leaked that their leader has set a deadline of January for the creation of two nuclear bombs. When this questionable source was made public, the government of Iran was silent: it did not dispute the statement--the absolutely worst thing they could have done.
So now Israel has given its final warning, using exactly the same wording it used before it attacked the Iraq nuclear facility years ago. And Israel has clearly said that *its* deadline is in November.
The question now becomes: and then what?
The US *must* allow overflights in both directions from Israel, on the guarantee that Israel will not use nuclear weapons in its attack. However, the US will *not* allow the Iranian Air Force to enter Iraqi airspace to counterattack Israel. The anti-ballistic missile defence will be conducted both in Iraq and in Israel, not mattering if the Iranian missiles are conventional or nuclear.
After the initial attack is over a state of war will exist and continue. The Iranians may decide to attack US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to menace shipping in the Gulf, or threaten to attack oilfields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Beyond that point, there are too many possibilities to speculate.
posted by kablam at 8:38 AM on October 7, 2004
It reaches this conclusion in three ways: it wants to become the new Sultanate of all the Shiia; it wants to create a Moslem empire, or to be the dominant force in all of Islam; and it wants to become a major military power, controlling the Persian Gulf and to a lesser extent the Caspian Sea.
It requires nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbors, to menace or throw out any other world powers from the region, to control the world oil market by threatening Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and to threaten Israel.
Its methods are what is creating the greatest concern. It now rejects negotiation, even in petty arguments like the disputed islands in the Gulf with the UAE. On one hand, it obviously "plays for time", yet surrenders nothing in the long run, even "confidence building measures." It also does not speak with a single voice, but sends out disturbing mixed messages, which are terribly unnerving to the international community. It seems to now be directed as much by macho bravado as by any sane policy strategy.
Within the last few days, news has leaked that their leader has set a deadline of January for the creation of two nuclear bombs. When this questionable source was made public, the government of Iran was silent: it did not dispute the statement--the absolutely worst thing they could have done.
So now Israel has given its final warning, using exactly the same wording it used before it attacked the Iraq nuclear facility years ago. And Israel has clearly said that *its* deadline is in November.
The question now becomes: and then what?
The US *must* allow overflights in both directions from Israel, on the guarantee that Israel will not use nuclear weapons in its attack. However, the US will *not* allow the Iranian Air Force to enter Iraqi airspace to counterattack Israel. The anti-ballistic missile defence will be conducted both in Iraq and in Israel, not mattering if the Iranian missiles are conventional or nuclear.
After the initial attack is over a state of war will exist and continue. The Iranians may decide to attack US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to menace shipping in the Gulf, or threaten to attack oilfields in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Beyond that point, there are too many possibilities to speculate.
posted by kablam at 8:38 AM on October 7, 2004
The U.S. may have the most military hardware by far in the world today, and no one else is going to come close for a good twenty years at least.
The overwhelming military advantage of the United States was far more overwhelming before Iraq was invaded. Now, the limitations of its military power has been exposed for all the world to see and it is a weaker nation for that fact.
The Yom Kippur War led to the return of the Sinai and a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. While Israel prevailed in that war--albeit not without a massive US airlift--it could be argued that the initial success of the Egyptian attack gave Anwar Sadat the room to offer peace and for Menachem Begin the motivation and room to accept it.
There is something to be said for not being too big for one's britches.
posted by y2karl at 9:58 AM on October 7, 2004
The overwhelming military advantage of the United States was far more overwhelming before Iraq was invaded. Now, the limitations of its military power has been exposed for all the world to see and it is a weaker nation for that fact.
The Yom Kippur War led to the return of the Sinai and a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. While Israel prevailed in that war--albeit not without a massive US airlift--it could be argued that the initial success of the Egyptian attack gave Anwar Sadat the room to offer peace and for Menachem Begin the motivation and room to accept it.
There is something to be said for not being too big for one's britches.
posted by y2karl at 9:58 AM on October 7, 2004
kablam:
I'm not sure what good US permission would do Israel -- there isn't any US territory between Israel and Iran.
However, Iraq is between Israel and Iran, and as a sovereign nation, their airspace is their dominian. If Allawi proved himself incapable of preventing a sworn enemy of his country from violating its airspace at will, the electorate would probably see to it that he was replaced by someone who could. And granting Israel overflight permission would probably have the same result.
Nothing is as simple as it seems, you know?
posted by Ptrin at 5:52 PM on October 9, 2004
I'm not sure what good US permission would do Israel -- there isn't any US territory between Israel and Iran.
However, Iraq is between Israel and Iran, and as a sovereign nation, their airspace is their dominian. If Allawi proved himself incapable of preventing a sworn enemy of his country from violating its airspace at will, the electorate would probably see to it that he was replaced by someone who could. And granting Israel overflight permission would probably have the same result.
Nothing is as simple as it seems, you know?
posted by Ptrin at 5:52 PM on October 9, 2004
« Older And why might we be asking ? | Cheney Bio Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I can think of a few other possible downsides to generalized possession of nuclear weapons by everybody from Kazakhstan to Kansas (besides constraining the use of US military force) that I fear but that they may not have cottoned to yet at Binghamton University.
P.S. North Korea's "putative nuclear program?"
posted by jfuller at 2:50 AM on October 7, 2004