Last night, I attended a presentation by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It was put on by the Houston World Affairs Council about Iran’s nuclear program. (Short plug- Houstonians with sufficient interest in public affairs to read blogs really ought to look into HWAC. It’s one of the best deals in town.)
Shorter Ray Takeyh: Iran is unlikely to stop weaponizing its nuclear program. From our perspective, all options stink.
Longer Ray Takeyh after the break.
He started by addressing the question of why Iran wants nuclear weapons. He says that the Iran-Iraq war left a deep impact on the Iranian psyche. They lost 50,000 lives to Saddam’s chemical weapons, which left them determined to hold a means of retaliation. The overthrow of Saddam doesn’t change their position entirely. The region might be left seriously unstable, or they might end up with a heavily-armed US client in Iraq, serving somewhat the same function as Iran did in the 70s. In either case, nuclear arms would provide a retaliatory capability that would help ensure continued access to the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, Iranians saw that when the United States presumed that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, we invaded. Chemical and biological weapons were not sufficient deterrents to forestall an invasion. North Korea, on the other hand, won concessions with its nuclear arms. There’s no serious talk of invasion. The lesson seemed clear.
There are two large schools of thought in Iran regarding the nuclear program, which he referred to as “nuclear breakthrough” and “nuclear hedging.” Advocates of nuclear breakthrough believe that an Islamic republic is under constant threat. Conflict with the US in inevitable, and they need to be militarily self-reliant as soon as possible to face this eventuality. They have no trust in international treaties, pointing out the passivity of the world when Saddam used chemical weapons in the 80s. If this course leads to sanctions, they’re willing to pay that price. They argue that sanctions will fade away, as they did against Pakistan and India, because the world will realize that the genie can’t be put back in the bottle.
Advocates of nuclear hedging place the nuclear issue in the context of all of Iran’s interests. They fear that Iranian nuclear weapons would provoke their neighbors to lean towards the US. The provocation would lead to sanctions, which they’re not willing to shrug off. Iran suffers from terrible unemployment, maybe 19%. Every year, 1,000,000 people enter the job market, and only 400,000 of them get jobs. There’s no way out of this hole without foreign investment and access to capital markets. UN sanctions would be crippling. They wouldn’t give up the nuclear program, but would use it as a chip to get concessions from the rest of the world.
Iranians are not discussing the “Libyan option”, giving up their program entirely. He had some interesting thoughts about how nuclear weapons are quickly becoming enmeshed in Iranian nationalism and identity. They quickly become too popular to give up. When he was teaching in Pakistan, he had students give him keychains shaped like nuclear missiles as token gifts. He saw clock radios shaped like nuclear missiles in Pakistani stores.
Furthermore, like any big program, it attracts a constituency of scientists, contractors, and so on, who have a direct interest in its continuation. He noted that Candidate Clinton campaigned against SDI, but President Clinton funded it every year. He thinks that, if Iran hasn’t already hit the political point of no return, they will very soon.
Someone asked if the liberal Iranian student movement might lead to disarmament. Just the opposite; the dissident students are big proponents of nuclear arms. They’ve conducted multiple demonstrations in support of the nuclear programs. He mentioned a conversation with one of the student leaders, who said that he hated the mullahs, he hated their character and their rules, and he was afraid that they were going to trade their nuclear program away.
So what to do? There have been countries that have backed down from nuclear programs- South Korea, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina. The answer has to be some combination of carrots and sticks. If we use nothing but sticks, we just exacerbate the fears that drive the program in the first place.
– We could do nothing, and let them develop arms. This would effectively be the end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, if two signatories develop nuclear arms. We’d have the extremely difficult task of renegotiating a new non-proliferation framework.
– We could offer a North Korea-style deal, offering concessions in return for heavy inspections and locks on their nuclear materials. This leads to all sort of uncomfortable ambiguities, as we’d never really know what we were missing. Bush has already rejected this option, so Takeyh didn’t discuss it much.
– The IEIA is currently in negotiations with Iran, trying to expand their inspections. They are likely to be limited in their effectiveness, because Iranians are unlikely to trust any security guarantees Europeans offer against the Americans. He doesn’t believe that it’ll be referred to the Security Council as long as the head of the IEIA refuses to say that Iran is militarizing their nuclear program.
– The military option of limited strikes would be very difficult. Iran’s nuclear facilities are hardened, urbanized, and underground. Bombing them would require tolerance for a high level of civilian casualties and precise intelligence. Given the Iraq experience, it would be nearly impossible to claim the latter.
He was asked whether Israel might decide to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, as they did to Iraq’s nascent nuclear program in 1981. Takeyh is apparently going to publish an article with Ken Pollack, arguing that this is next to impossible. Even in the best of all worlds, Israel doesn’t have the capacity to do it. According to Pollack, they only have 25 appropriate planes. Taking out underground institutions requires heavy bombers, which can’t take off from aircraft carriers or ordinary airfields. In fact, according to Takeyh, American heavy bombers would have to take off from Missouri. There’s a closer airfield in Dar es Salaam, but we’d need permission from the British. (This sounded strange to me; I’m just passing it on.) Given the likelihood of redundant institutions, it’s unlikely that anyone could have much confidence in the ability of airstrikes to stop the nuclear program.
He didn’t discuss the option of another Iraq-scale invasion, and no one asked about it. Whether that’s because they’re so obviously unfeasible, or because we didn’t have time to cover them, I couldn’t say.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 78 comments }
Cranky Observer 01.20.05 at 7:28 pm
> In fact, according to Takeyh,
> American heavy bomber would have to
> take off from Missouri.
That would imply that the plan would be to use the B-2. There are only a few bases worldwide that can handle the maintenance and secrecy requirements for the B-2; the main one is in Missoui. I had read they were building facilities in Diego Garcia but that too might require British approval.
Cranky
Freder Frederson 01.20.05 at 8:08 pm
That would imply that the plan would be to use the B-2.
Which of course is silly. There is no need to use the B-2 other than to justify its existence. B-52s or B-1s could do the job without ever penetrating Iranian airspace. Of course any attack on Iran is sheer stupidity and would guarantee immediate and severe reprisals against our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If I hadn’t lived through the last four years I wouldn’t believe that anyone in the government would contemplate such an obviously stupid and dangerous action.
Cranky Observer 01.20.05 at 8:27 pm
This is a great post by the way. I hope it gets linked around the liberal blogsphere. Thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Cranky
blogopogo 01.20.05 at 8:28 pm
Furthermore, Iranians saw that when the United States presumed that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, we invaded. Chemical and biological weapons were not sufficient deterrents to forestall an invasion. North Korea, on the other hand, won concessions with its nuclear arms. There’s no serious talk of invasion. The lesson seemed clear.
given our history with them, they have no reason to believe we would otherwise respect their sovereignity.
much is made of big bad iran in the wake of the hostage crisis, but those pimping that fear to the public had no problem selling weapons to iran shortly thereafter.
the only reason to attack iran at this juncture is it happens to be conveniently located between countries we’ve recently occupied. that and seeing GUUAM gent bent over a table by the North-South Transportation Corridor upsets us. and we have a consumer/electoral base dumb enough to believe (once again) that al-Qaeda serves Iran’s interests.
war is capitalism with its gloves off.
Matt 01.20.05 at 8:36 pm
Freder,
I’m not sure that an attack on Iranian nuke facilities could be done w/o penetraiting Iranian airspace unless we wanted to use nukes- I suspect you’re refering to using cruise missles, but they don’t care big enough wareheads to attack the sort of bunkers we think Iran has- that’s why it would have to be done w/ bombers. (Please don’t think I think this would be a good idea- I think the whole thing would be a terrible idea. But, I don’t think it could be done w/ cruise missles.)
John Emerson 01.20.05 at 8:38 pm
To me, the relevant questions are “What does Bush want to do?” and “Does he have the resources to do it?”
Institutional limits on Presidential war-making powers are insignificant by now, and Bush has made clear that he will push his mandate to the limit.
However, because of manpower shortages, he may have to impose a draft. Whether the American people would accept that is uncertain to me (I’m talking about resistance and evasion, rather than Congressional opposition).
So if a draft were put in place, Bush would have to crush anti-war activity by a combination of demagofic propaganda, legal measure, and possibly illegal measures. This might be possible, especially with the help of a crisis, because only the strongest war opponents, not a large group, would continue their opposition in the face of serious pressure.
My post may seem off-topic, as mine often are, but I rather resent the idea that we are having, or should have, a national debate about Iran. The 2004 Presidential election guaranteed that whatever debate there is is only between the top Bush policymakers, and that the role of the rest of us is to sit around and watch.
The most recent trial balloon seemed to be for an air war combined with special forces destabilization of the country. What comes after that I could only guess.
roger 01.20.05 at 8:55 pm
One of the options not listed in your excellent post is some kind of quid pro quo, Israel giving up its nukes so Iran gives up its nukes. Or is this some kind of impossibility?
am 01.20.05 at 9:02 pm
Like every other analysis I’ve seen, this one appears to totally avoid dicussion of the threat which Iranian nukes would constitute to their most likely target, Israel, and Israel’s likely reaction to this.
AFAICT, given flight-times and the current and likely future status of missile defense, Israel’s *only* means of avoiding national annihilation is a preemptive counter-force first strike based on human intelligence assets. Israel cannot rely upon deterrence (even if they had decent second-strike capability) and Israel cannot rely upon satellite launch detection.
Israel has to go first to survive.
Kevin Donoghue 01.20.05 at 9:32 pm
“Israel has to go first to survive.”
AM, Even if we accept (arguendo) the reasoning which leads to this dramatic conclusion, you have left it dangling in mid-air.
Unless the Israelis know where the Iranian launch-sites are they have very little chance of escaping retaliation. Are you simply assuming such knowledge?
Sebastian Holsclaw 01.20.05 at 9:56 pm
“However, because of manpower shortages, he may have to impose a draft. Whether the American people would accept that is uncertain to me (I’m talking about resistance and evasion, rather than Congressional opposition).”
I swear I hate seeing this level of disinformation. The manpower shortages are 100% because of a lack of authorization to expand the military, not because of recruitment failures. The US could easily resume 1980s levels of military personnel (almost double our current levels) without even thinking for a moment about a draft.
As for Iran, I think it is a clear that without direct US intervention Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. This should (but almost certainly will not) expose the non-proliferation treaties as the complete joke that they have been for decades.
am 01.20.05 at 10:10 pm
Kevin, that’s a good point. The Shahab-3 (and surely the -4 and -5) can be carried on road-mobile launchers so yes, it would require good intelligence to be able to disable a significant number of them. Then hope that missile defense can stop most of the rest.
If the Israelis cannot gain that intelligence then they are totally vulnerable. It is a matter of national survival so they’ll put the resources into it.
What other choice have they? Become a declared power then negotiate mutual disarmament? Sounds unlikely, doesn’t it?
It will be a very dangerous situation.
abb1 01.20.05 at 10:13 pm
The NPT was fine before crazies in Washington destroyed the international system of laws and collective security.
am 01.20.05 at 10:28 pm
abb1, Iran’s nuclear program has been running for at least 18 years. Don’t be silly.
Kevin Donoghue 01.20.05 at 10:30 pm
“What other choice have they?”
I really don’t think the mullahs are crazy enough to attack Israel anyway. But I might not want to bet on that if I were an Israeli. The best insurance would be a formal Israeli-American alliance: if Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran.
(Incidentally I think the Gulf monarchies have most to fear from the mullahs, but that reflects my view that they are pretty normal practitioners of realpolitik, not a bunch of nutters.)
Walt Pohl 01.20.05 at 10:34 pm
John (Emerson): What debate? This is more like small talk on the Titanic after the life boats have left. We’re just filling up time while we wait for the boat to sink.
Kevin Donoghue 01.20.05 at 10:46 pm
Sebastian Holsclaw: “As for Iran, I think it is a clear that without direct US intervention Iran will soon have nuclear weapons.”
Presumably “soon” means within a few years. What does intervention mean? Full-scale invasion? If so you are talking about a very big operation indeed and talk of a draft is not out of place. Iran is a far tougher proposition than Iraq.
Rob 01.20.05 at 11:11 pm
Sebastian likes his own level of disinformation! No one is meeting recruiting goals or reup goals. The amry could be made to have 5 gazillion people and if no one shows up voluntarily it doesn’t matter.
abb1 01.20.05 at 11:14 pm
The best insurance would be a formal Israeli-American alliance: if Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran.
There is, of course, that appalling appeasement solution: to pull the troops from the territories occupied in 1967, implement a fair solution to the refugees problem and try peaceful mutually beneficial co-existence with the neighbors, including Iran.
I know this would be a completely crazy thing to do, but I thought I’d just mention it anyway.
am 01.20.05 at 11:17 pm
Kevin: yeah, sure. It’s hard to believe that the Mullahs would simply up and vaporise Israel.
The big risk comes if/when the much-mooted popular revolution comes in Iran. Under these circumstances the Mullahs may decide to take Israel with them. As I’m sure you know, Iranian leaders have correctly pointed out that a nuclear exchange with Israel would destroy Israel but could be absorbed by Iran, or by the moslem world at large.
Would the mullahs go for an involuntary martydom operation under such circumstances? The risk cannot be dismissed by Israel.
Freder Frederson 01.20.05 at 11:33 pm
The US could easily resume 1980s levels of military personnel (almost double our current levels) without even thinking for a moment about a draft.
I don’t think we could. We are falling well short on National Guard and Reserves recruiting goals (30-40%) and the only reason the regular army is fulfilling their goals are they are fudging the numbers. It is a lot harder to recruit during an unpopular war than during peacetime.
John Emerson 01.20.05 at 11:49 pm
From what I’m hearing about the stoploss program, I doubt that Guard recruitment is going to go well. I also have read about people who had planned to put in their 20 years leaving the service early.
Unlike Sebastian, I do not claim to be an expert on this. What I actually said was “However, because of manpower shortages, he **may** have to impose a draft.”
Not exactly a bold and exaggerated claim. I fail to see how an admittedly-speculative statement as weak as that one can be called “disinformation”.
Some of the neocon hawks are enthusiastic about a draft. Even Matt Yglesias sort of likes the idea. Get a grip, Sebastian.
am 01.20.05 at 11:54 pm
“Some of the neocon hawks are enthusiastic about a draft”
Huh? Whowherewhenwhatwhy?
x 01.21.05 at 12:32 am
“One of the options not listed in your excellent post is some kind of quid pro quo, Israel giving up its nukes so Iran gives up its nukes. Or is this some kind of impossibility?”
No, roger, of course not. Why wouldn’t Israel and Iran peacefully and happily agree to ship their nukes to Nevada for proper burial? We could have a televised ceremony of the event. With a concert by U2. You know, to promote their appropriately titled latest album.
It’s not at all impossible. However, on a scale of likelihood it’s a lot lower than the scenario in which Israel and Iran agree to deliver their nuclear arsenal to my back garden, and hook it up to my house, to deliver me permanently from the trouble of paying electricity bills. Well, permanently may be too hopeful. Let’s say, at least for a couple of years. You never know, with nuclear power. It’s not all it’s cooked up to be, frankly. Maybe I should go for solar panels, but they cost a lot more than plutonium.
Anyway, I’m in the process of securing that deal, I’ll let you know when it’s done. I’ll do anything to contribute to world peace. (Of course I already have a list of prospective clients from all over the world, to whom I’m going to resell all that nuclear goodness, but the Israelis and Iranians don’t have a clue. They’re so gullible!)
Gary Farber 01.21.05 at 1:08 am
A couple of comments on niggling points: “According to Pollack, they only have 25 appropriate planes.”
This is true if we’re talking about an attack this month. But the Israelis are taking posssession of two new F-16Is per month until, as currently planned, their order of 102 of this plane is filled (it’s always possible the order could be extended or added to, as well). So their technical ability to hit Iran is constantly on the increase. The far more significant problems are locating all the sites, and the repercussions that would come from such an attack, particularly given the inevitability of heavy civilian casualties.
“In fact, according to Takeyh, American heavy bombers would have to take off from Missouri.”
This isn’t in the least strange; as various folks noted, that’s our main B-2 base, and let me make clear that we’ve flown them from there to hit the Mideast since 1991; the B-2 could fly as many times around the world as long as the crew had food and kept their refueling rendezvous.
And the level of Iran’s air defenses is such that it’s entirely reasonable to prefer to use the stealthy capabilities of the B-2 over the B-52 or B-1; it’s rare that one can say that, but this is one of those rare examples (note: this is the opinion of an amateur who only sits at home and reads). Were the U.S. doing it, an attack might involve preliminary attacks on air defense radars and missile systems by F-117s, and other planes, as well. Of course, the other problems remain.
“There is, of course, that appalling appeasement solution: to pull the troops from the territories occupied in 1967, implement a fair solution to the refugees problem and try peaceful mutually beneficial co-existence with the neighbors, including Iran.”
The mullahs haven’t displayed the faintest sign of a hint of a suggestion of any possibility of ever having any interest in a “two-state” Palestinian/Israeli solution; their quite repeated policy is the abolition of the Israeli state, to be replaced entirely by a solely Palestinian state. This is not an unpublicized bit of news, so this suggestion is as in contact with reality as suggesting that Martians be installed as peacekeepers.
“One of the options not listed in your excellent post is some kind of quid pro quo, Israel giving up its nukes so Iran gives up its nukes. Or is this some kind of impossibility?”
I can certainly imagine the possibility after something on the order of fifty years of peaceful friendly relations between Israel and the democratic nations of the Middle East.
So we might see that happen within the lifetime of some reading this. Just not much sooner.
John Emerson 01.21.05 at 2:44 am
“Whowherewhenwhatwhy?”
Not one of the big names, and not a guy in government. I forget who, but the story had a fair amount of play. Sort of a stalking horse type guy.
If I thought Bush was to be trusted and that his war plans were necessary, a draft would not seem like a terrible idea. But since promises have been made, even to mention the possibility of a draft is “disinformation”.
Something Polish 01.21.05 at 2:44 am
He mentioned a conversation with one of the student leaders, who said that he hated the mullahs, he hated their character and their rules, and he was afraid that they were going to trade their nuclear program away.
Hmm. Has Tom Friedman been informed?
Don Quijote 01.21.05 at 2:54 am
And after we have destroyed a handfull of buildings and killed a few hundred Iranians, the Iranians will bomb the port facilities in Kuwait and Umm Qsar, Mine the straight of Ormuz, supply some nice Manpads to the Iraqis and just sit back and watch what’s left of the US Army get destroyed in Iraq.
Jim Harrison 01.21.05 at 7:35 am
Folks who think that the administration will reinstitute the draft should consider the timing of such a move. It would take quite a while to get Congress to go along and another long period to get the system back up and running. Training and equipping additional divisions would also require months and months. By the time the military were sufficiently enlarged to open a new front, Iran would probably already have enough nuclear bombs to make a conventional attack suicidal.
Sebastian Holsclaw 01.21.05 at 7:41 am
“I don’t think we could. We are falling well short on National Guard and Reserves recruiting goals (30-40%) and the only reason the regular army is fulfilling their goals are they are fudging the numbers.”
Guard recruiting is down because why in the world would you join the reserves if you know you are going to get deployed. For most people it would be better just to join up fully.
Joel Turnipseed 01.21.05 at 8:41 am
Recruiting: Sebastian, I think you are somewhat right, re: Guard recruiting, and wrong w/r/t doubling the force. We could probably double SOME forces–like the Marine Corps and Rangers, since there are always enough speed freaks who would join regardless (I should know)–but I highly doubt (unless economy really tanks) that we could double the forces, per se. I DO know that the Guard/Reserve is SCREWED, especially from a readiness perspective (also: my little bro’ is in Iraq now & my book is evidently a big hit w/Guard & Reserves over there: a BAD sign for recruiting that is, as people have already pointed out, down 30% this year after being down 10% the previous year).
As for timing of draft, while I think it HIGHLY unlikely, it wouldn’t take more than about six-twelve months to crank up an extra division or two if we were REALLY serious about it (lest we forget: in WWII we went from less than 200K to 16M in a couple years!). It currently takes about six months to get a Marine from MEPS to graduate from most basic MOS schools, so you’d be looking at 9 mos. to a year to get started with significantly increased force (and, of course, Special Forces requires YEARS of training, w/most schools scattered around the world–and those are the guys we really need, along w/Marine Recon/ANGLICO). The real problem with draft, however, is that it just doesn’t make a good fighting force–I’d rather have 10 volunteer Marines fighting than 1000 drafted soldiers, who would spend most of their time creating a general clusterfuck wherever they found themselves.
As for taking out Iran’s nuclear capability by armed conflict–boy, that would be a true disaster… and, given the difficulty of succeeding in the enterprise, a huge risk. Of course, if we think 9/11 changed things–imagine what would happen after the first nuke gets detonated.
Darren 01.21.05 at 9:20 am
It is fallacious to regard the proliferation of nuclear weapons as a political issue. It isn’t: it is a technological issue. Expect in the future non-state actors to have greater access to nuclear weapons.
According to Creveld, nuclear weapons have ended massive conventional warfare. Isn’t that a good thing? Shouldn’t the Iranians be encouraged to have a nuclear deterrence capability?
Darren 01.21.05 at 9:23 am
Here is another paper by Creveld that may be of use.
luci phyrr 01.21.05 at 9:58 am
Israel’s only means of avoiding national annihilation is a preemptive counter-force first strike […] Israel has to go first to survive.
What other choice have they?
How about: they live with it? Most countries in the world do. A agreement for the US to counterstrike if, say, China evaporates Taiwan, doesn’t do much for the dead Taiwanese. An erased Israel faces the same problem.
Is the threat to Israel qualitatively different? Does the argument rely on “they’re crazy, deterrence doesn’t work on people like that”?
abb1 01.21.05 at 10:31 am
The mullahs haven’t displayed the faintest sign of a hint of a suggestion of any possibility of ever having any interest in a “two-state†Palestinian/Israeli solution; their quite repeated policy is the abolition of the Israeli state, to be replaced entirely by a solely Palestinian state. This is not an unpublicized bit of news, so this suggestion is as in contact with reality as suggesting that Martians be installed as peacekeepers.
They use very strong rhetoric but so do the Bushies, for example.
If you think anti-Israeli rhetoric from Inan precludes any possibility of peaceful co-existence, then the Iranians would have to feel the same about the ‘axis of evil’ bit and, basically, there is no hope whatsoever for any improvements. I don’t think this is a right approach.
Chris Bertram 01.21.05 at 10:33 am
am: Israel’s only means of avoiding national annihilation is a preemptive counter-force first strike […] Israel has to go first to survive.
And, if that’s true….
Iran’s only means of avoiding national annihilation is a preemptive counter-force first strike […] Iran has to go first to survive.
And if _that’t true_ …..
Israel’s only means of avoiding national annihilation is a preemptive counter-force first strike […] Israel has to go first to survive.
etc.
So perhaps you’d better think of another option.
Darren 01.21.05 at 10:43 am
Any chance that the Iranians will launch a pre-emptive (conventional) strike against the current Iraqi occupiers?
MFB 01.21.05 at 11:37 am
Nuclear weapons are only useful as deterrents against attack. This is because they are genocide devices. Nations committing genocide become instant pariahs.
Suppose, say, Israel nukes Iran. I dare say Israel would survive for years after that, with American military aid. But nobody else in the world (apart from a few radical right-wing Jews) would support it any more. You can’t use the Holocaust as a defence when you’ve murdered millions yourself.
Hence, get realistic. I mean, the Arabs have had to live with the threat of Israeli nukes for four decades. You’re telling me the Israelis and Americans can’t live with Iranian nukes? Bullshit.
Andrew Boucher 01.21.05 at 11:57 am
“The best insurance would be a formal Israeli-American alliance: if Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran.”
And America gives Israel this guarantee out of the goodness of its heart? Because it’s supposed to be the world’s policeman and judge and rectify all wrongs? I’m sorry, I don’t see any reason why America should do this for Israel. An alliance usually means that each country helps the other – what is the U.S. getting out of such a deal ?
Chris B.: I presume the suggestion that Israel attack first is made with the idea that it attack *before* Iran has actually developed a working atomic bomb. In that case your logic does not hold.
dsquared 01.21.05 at 12:09 pm
An alliance usually means that each country helps the other – what is the U.S. getting out of such a deal ?
An Iran that still pumps oil.
Andrew Boucher 01.21.05 at 12:34 pm
“An Iran that still pumps oil.”
Not good enough.
Kevin Donoghue 01.21.05 at 2:34 pm
“And America gives Israel this guarantee out of the goodness of its heart?”
An American president gives this guarantee in order to win votes, using D-squared’s argument as well as various noble sentiments about God, freedom etc.
John Emerson 01.21.05 at 2:34 pm
“I’d rather have 10 volunteer Marines fighting than 1000 drafted soldiers, who would spend most of their time creating a general clusterfuck wherever they found themselves.”
That seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Draftees would especially be used in support roles (which are “non-combat” but still in the line of fire at times). The new plan is to use hired contractors to do that kind of thing (sort of like military temps I guess), but I don’t see that working very well unless the contractors are enslaved once they get there. In which case contractor recruitin would eventually suffer.
John Emerson 01.21.05 at 2:40 pm
“I’d rather have 10 volunteer Marines fighting than 1000 drafted soldiers, who would spend most of their time creating a general clusterfuck wherever they found themselves.”
That seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Draftees would especially be used in support roles (which are “non-combat” but still in the line of fire at times). The new plan is to use hired contractors to do that kind of thing (sort of like military temps I guess), but I don’t see that working very well unless the contractors are enslaved once they get there. In which case contractor recruitin would eventually suffer.
jet 01.21.05 at 3:37 pm
Andrew,
The US would do it because Israel is a democracy. The US does seem to have a pattern of lending military support for democracies. It is also an amusing tidbit of information that the US has never had to pick sides between two conflicting democracies.
And one fact that is always left out of the N. Korean equation is that N. Korea can kill 1 million S. Korean civilians in the first hour of war WITHOUT USING NUKES. Just using conventional artillery and rockets, Seoul and surrounding suburbs can be obliterated with most deaths in the first 10 minutes. So military options against N. Korea weren’t feasible long before they had nukes. Iran has no means of doing the same. The US would hardly have to muster any ground forces to stop an Iranian advance. In reality, the US can bomb the shit out of Iran with little fear reciprocation. All I can say is I’m glad I don’t have to make the decisions on how crazy the Mullahs are and how willing they would be to use nukes or give them to terrorists. Because who do you pick the worst of a whole shit load of awful options? And doing nothing might be the worst?
roger 01.21.05 at 4:03 pm
Well, X, you certainly think that there is no chance that Israel would trade away its {illegal} nukes, nor that Iran would trade away its potential to make (illegal) nukes. And that I’m a gumba to think such a thing would happen…
I think you are probably right. However, even gulls have their ruses. I think that it is important to float that suggestion, since it clarifies a fact: while the U.S. is demanding extraordinary measures to keep Iran in compliance with international covenants on atomic weapons, it turns a blind eye to allies who violate those covenants.
The most interesting thing about Ted’s post, to me, is the way in which, just as was the case with Iraq, the neo-con foreign policy crowd radically simplifies, and thus distorts, the meaning of ‘democracy’ in the Middle East. In Iraq, before the war, nobody on the American side mentioned or even thought about Ayatollah Sistani — who, it turns out, has been a much greater shaper of the coming Iraqi governing structure than any American ‘advisor’. Similarly, no matter who wins in Iran, the popular course is definitely to go nuclear. If the U.S. thinks it is going to put a popular, pro-Israeli, anti-nuke democratic government in place in Teheran, it is crazy. The combination is self-cancelling.
Andrew Boucher 01.21.05 at 4:43 pm
“The US would do it because Israel is a democracy.”
Do you mean would or should here? If it really is “would”, you seem to be making a prediction of an event transpiring, and then saying that the primary cause of that event is the status of Israel as a democracy – I’m not sure I agree with you. (If the Palestinian authority were to become a functioning democracy, then would the U.S. give the same kind of guarantee ? I think obviously not.)
If it’s “should” you meant, then, as I said, the US should not be the world’s policeman or judge.
x 01.21.05 at 4:48 pm
roger, I honestly didn’t draw any big conclusions, I just thought it was hilarious that anyone would be suggesting that possibility. No offence was meant. Just a bit of fun.
By the way, Iran has agreements with India also relating to the whole nuclear project. India has agreements with Israel, too. The US has very close relations with Pakistan, as well as Israel and India. Then, bring in Turkey, with which both Iran and Israel have (military, economic) agreements, as do the US… How about that for ‘diplomatic mess’. Or maybe it’ll all balance out. Bah. I have no idea how these things work.
Now, for the oddly enough section:
Sources in Iran say, the Iranian Air Force have admitted these sighting and assuming these are US spy crafts, directed Iranian Air Force to shoot them down at sight. … The timing of the reported increase in sightings, which comes as the United States is urging allies to confront Iran over its nuclear program, has strengthened Iranian public perceptions that the objects are surveillance or hostile aircrafts monitoring Iran. Iran’s Air Force chief Gen. Karim Ghavami was quoted in Iranian newspapers as saying that Iran was fully prepared to defend any threat to its nuclear installations.
Ben 01.21.05 at 5:03 pm
The US would also give a guarantee to Israel for the sake of stability. A full-scale nuclear exchange anywhere in the world would be bad news. A nuclear-armed Iran is very bad news, but there may be no palitable alternative. The problem with Iran having nukes: According to thier ideology, it is a glorious thing to die for God, especially if you take God’s enemies with you. Taking this to its logical conclusion, what’s wrong with wiping God’s enemies off the map, even if the cost is destruction of your own nation? The current crop of Iranian leaders seems to possess some level of rationality and survival instinct, but how confident are you that their successors (raised on a steady diet of education in Islamic schools) will share the same instincts?
The truly dangerous nuclear power is the one that has nothing to lose by using nukes. A nation whose leaders believe that 75 virgins await them after glorious martyrdom is one hell of a lot more likely to launch a first strike than someone who just wants to survive.
MQ 01.21.05 at 7:33 pm
From Gary Farber:
“The mullahs haven’t displayed the faintest sign of a hint of a suggestion of any possibility of ever having any interest in a “two-state†Palestinian/Israeli solution; their quite repeated policy is the abolition of the Israeli state, to be replaced entirely by a solely Palestinian state. This is not an unpublicized bit of news, so this suggestion is as in contact with reality as suggesting that Martians be installed as peacekeepers.”
This is false. The palestinians and other Arab states (through Saudi Arabia and Syria) have consistently been offering a two-state solution for years now. Israel has rejected them. The Likud wants to keep 60% plus of the West Bank, once you understand that a lot makes sense in the Middle East.
Alireza 01.21.05 at 7:55 pm
There seems to be a tendency in the comments here to equate the Iranian government with “Crazy Mullahs” and to attribute to “Crazy Mullahs” the desire to nuke every infidel on the planet, should the opportunity arise. This is completely fallacious and naive. First off, neither the Iranian government nor the army has ever been controlled by the small radical right wing that might have such desires (these radicals are much weaker than their counterparts in Israel and the U.S., although they will certainly be strengthened by continued U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling). And even those radicals who openly talk about the need to acquire nuclear weapons speak about this as a deterrent to the existential threat posed by the U.S. and Israel, not as a means to actually strike first against political enemies.
Second, I think everybody needs to remember that Iran has not started war against any country in at least two centuries. Even at the height of revolutionary fervor in the nineteen eighties, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the most Iran did was to provide training and military support to Hezbollah in its campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanese territory. Regarding the Palestinian issue and the “two-state solution,” the standard government line for several years has been that Iran is not more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves: If they reach a settlement with Israel, Iran will respect it. There is no desire in even the most radical quarters of society to “annihilate” Israel simply because we can.
Ben above talks about the “ideology” of martyrdom in Iran. He is right only insofar as defensive war is concerned, such as the eight-year war with Iraq. It is survival instict coupled with belief in the righteousness of defense that makes the symbolism of martyrdom a potent force. Dying for death’s sake is not glorified in anybody’s “ideology” in Iran.
And, Ben, I personally went to school in Iran, and I never heard of the seventy-five virgins until I came to the U.S. This is one of those lies that’s been repeated so many times that it passes as truth.
Alireza 01.21.05 at 7:57 pm
There seems to be a tendency in the comments here to equate the Iranian government with “Crazy Mullahs” and to attribute to “Crazy Mullahs” the desire to nuke every infidel on the planet, should the opportunity arise. This is completely fallacious and naive. First off, neither the Iranian government nor the army has ever been controlled by the small radical right wing that might have such desires (these radicals are much weaker than their counterparts in Israel and the U.S., although they will certainly be strengthened by continued U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling). And even those radicals who openly talk about the need to acquire nuclear weapons speak about this as a deterrent to the existential threat posed by the U.S. and Israel, not as a means to actually strike first against political enemies.
Second, I think everybody needs to remember that Iran has not started war against any country in at least two centuries. Even at the height of revolutionary fervor in the nineteen eighties, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the most Iran did was to provide training and military support to Hezbollah in its campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanese territory. Regarding the Palestinian issue and the “two-state solution,” the standard government line for several years has been that Iran is not more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves: If they reach a settlement with Israel, Iran will respect it. There is no desire in even the most radical quarters of society to “annihilate” Israel simply because we can.
Ben above talks about the “ideology” of martyrdom in Iran. He is right only insofar as defensive war is concerned, such as the eight-year war with Iraq. It is survival instict coupled with belief in the righteousness of defense that makes the symbolism of martyrdom a potent force. Dying for death’s sake is not glorified in anybody’s “ideology” in Iran.
And, Ben, I personally went to school in Iran, and I never heard of the seventy-five virgins until I came to the U.S. This is one of those lies that’s been repeated so many times that it passes as truth.
Alireza 01.21.05 at 7:58 pm
There seems to be a tendency in the comments here to equate the Iranian government with “Crazy Mullahs” and to attribute to “Crazy Mullahs” the desire to nuke every infidel on the planet, should the opportunity arise. This is completely fallacious and naive. First off, neither the Iranian government nor the army has ever been controlled by the small radical right wing that might have such desires (these radicals are much weaker than their counterparts in Israel and the U.S., although they will certainly be strengthened by continued U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling). And even those radicals who openly talk about the need to acquire nuclear weapons speak about this as a deterrent to the existential threat posed by the U.S. and Israel, not as a means to actually strike first against political enemies.
Second, I think everybody needs to remember that Iran has not started war against any country in at least two centuries. Even at the height of revolutionary fervor in the nineteen eighties, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the most Iran did was to provide training and military support to Hezbollah in its campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanese territory. Regarding the Palestinian issue and the “two-state solution,” the standard government line for several years has been that Iran is not more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves: If they reach a settlement with Israel, Iran will respect it. There is no desire in even the most radical quarters of society to “annihilate” Israel simply because we can.
Ben above talks about the “ideology” of martyrdom in Iran. He is right only insofar as defensive war is concerned, such as the eight-year war with Iraq. It is survival instict coupled with belief in the righteousness of defense that makes the symbolism of martyrdom a potent force. Dying for death’s sake is not glorified in anybody’s “ideology” in Iran.
And, Ben, I personally went to school in Iran, and I never heard of the seventy-five virgins until I came to the U.S. This is one of those lies that’s been repeated so many times that it passes as truth.
Alireza 01.21.05 at 7:59 pm
There seems to be a tendency in the comments here to equate the Iranian government with “Crazy Mullahs” and to attribute to “Crazy Mullahs” the desire to nuke every infidel on the planet, should the opportunity arise. This is completely fallacious and naive. First off, neither the Iranian government nor the army has ever been controlled by the small radical right wing that might have such desires (these radicals are much weaker than their counterparts in Israel and the U.S., although they will certainly be strengthened by continued U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling). And even those radicals who openly talk about the need to acquire nuclear weapons speak about this as a deterrent to the existential threat posed by the U.S. and Israel, not as a means to actually strike first against political enemies.
Second, I think everybody needs to remember that Iran has not started war against any country in at least two centuries. Even at the height of revolutionary fervor in the nineteen eighties, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the most Iran did was to provide training and military support to Hezbollah in its campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanese territory. Regarding the Palestinian issue and the “two-state solution,” the standard government line for several years has been that Iran is not more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves: If they reach a settlement with Israel, Iran will respect it. There is no desire in even the most radical quarters of society to “annihilate” Israel simply because “we can”.
Ben above talks about the “ideology” of martyrdom in Iran. He is right only insofar as defensive war is concerned, such as the eight-year war with Iraq. It is survival instict coupled with belief in the righteousness of defense that makes the symbolism of martyrdom a potent force. Dying for death’s sake is not glorified in anybody’s “ideology” in Iran.
And, Ben, I personally went to school in Iran, and I never heard of the seventy-five virgins until I came to the U.S. This is one of those lies that’s been repeated so many times that it passes as truth.
Alireza 01.21.05 at 8:03 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts! I kept getting errors and so tried again and again and again…
MQ 01.21.05 at 8:32 pm
Alireza, blanketing CT with crazed multiple posts shows clearly that you are a fanatical Iraqi who none of us good Americans can trust. No doubt you would use multiple posts to drive the Jews into the sea if you could! You can’t fool us!
Ferry 01.21.05 at 8:48 pm
Reading these posts makes one realize how out of touch and media-fed the American public opinion is.
1) Not one of you has mentioned that it may actually be true that Iranians have a legitimate security concern that needs to be addressed or they will address it themselves (as they are), especially since a bunch of Americans in this blog are validating the Iranians legitimate case for fear of Israel and the U.S. Because it is quite expected and normal that Israel send bombers or cruise missles to bomb the crap out of Iranians some night, but any talk of Mullahs doing the same is outrageous and grounds for pre-emption.
2) You don’t have a clue that Iranians, though unhappy with their current regime, may actually consider the price of their cities ending up looking like Fallujah and Baghdad and their children being blown to pieces at American checkpoints too high a price for accepting an American style freedom gift! (click here and see the slide show – #3)
Reading this blog, an average Iranian youth will no doubt think that democracy and free press is so wasted on all of you!
ferry 01.21.05 at 8:59 pm
Go here…then click to see the slide show, then see slide # 3 – If you have children or nieces and nephews, your heart will sink. This is why people are scared of Bush and his ambitions and will arm themselves to protect their children…unless we talk to Iranians and not down to them and see why they are going after nukes, there will be no winners at the end of this madness: #3http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3842331/?GT1=6065
Thomas 01.21.05 at 9:40 pm
If Iran actually was crasy enough to up and just launch a nuclear first-strike at Israel any US guarantee would be rather pointless because all the american missiles would accoplish would be to turn the glassy plain left by the (order determined by missile flight-time) Russian, French and British strikes a bit hotter. And the Iranians know this.
I also question the assumption that the iranian nuclear program is all about the bomb: Iran does need lots and lots of electricity quite badly and burning their oil and gas reserves to get it amounts to fireing the powerplant boilers with hard currency, which Iran also needs quite badly. Nuclear Power on the other hand runs on highly educated labour which is also in quite plentiful supply in Iran.- Not saying Iran doesn’t want the bomb, I’m just not sure they actually want it as badly as they want the powerplants and liveable relations with the rest of the world.
Sebastian Holsclaw 01.21.05 at 10:00 pm
“If Iran actually was crasy enough to up and just launch a nuclear first-strike at Israel any US guarantee would be rather pointless because all the american missiles would accoplish would be to turn the glassy plain left by the (order determined by missile flight-time) Russian, French and British strikes a bit hotter.”
Why in the world do you think any of those countries would immediately bomb Iran if Iran glassed Israel?
Cranky Observer 01.21.05 at 10:44 pm
While some of the research required is of course similar, nuclear weapons technology and nuclear power technlogy diverged around 1965 and are now totally seperate worlds. There isn’t much cross-communication between the two.
Also, Iran could purchase nuclear power plants from France or Canada by agreeing to station IAEA inspectors at each plant and return the used fuel to the country of origin.
Cranky
derrida derider 01.22.05 at 5:34 am
Thomas’ position (that Iran is mainly after nuclear electricity) iis easily testable – if so, they’ll screw the toughest deal they can out of the Europeans & settle down.
But I don’t think it is – they want the bomb. And why wouldn’t they? Regardless of my politics, if I was an Iranian I’d want my government to get a bomb – now, before the most aggresive country in the world invades.
Kimmitt 01.22.05 at 5:37 am
The problem with Iranian nukes is the same problem as with Pakistani nukes — what if someone who really is nuts takes over, and what if someone who really is nuts defeats the less-than-stellar security at the nuclear facilities?
abb1 01.22.05 at 9:15 am
what if someone who really is nuts takes over
I thought this was the problem we’ve been having in the US for the last 4 years – with the US nukes and everything else.
seth edenbaum 01.22.05 at 6:26 pm
“We could do nothing, and let them develop arms. This would effectively be the end of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty”
What is this crap? And enough with the moral authority of the fucking Israelis. They have no more than anyone else. They exist. That’s enough. So Iran has the bomb. So what? I’d rather it be Iran than Pakistan.
Oh… right.
Enough with the quasi-demonizing/hand wringing/moralizing/whining liberal crap. As far as which is which, in the proverbial game of Us and ‘Them (and doesn’t this game underlie the whole goddamn debate?) I have far more respect for Iran. And I take their politicians far more seriously than what, Likud? The Settlers!?
Israel is the wild card here, and no one else.
“But the Israelis are our friends… They’re like us”
Then I pity you.
So it’s time for ping pong diplomacy (again).
Fine, then that’s what we should do. But giving an inch of high ground to Likudniks and moralizing christian philosemites is politically absurd and morally grotesque.
Gary Farber 01.22.05 at 7:23 pm
“The palestinians and other Arab states (through Saudi Arabia and Syria) have consistently been offering a two-state solution for years now.”
“Palestinians” gets a capital. Yes, this is, essentially, true (although the quibbly little details remain significant). As well, Norway, Australia, Mexico, and Tonga also favor a two-state solution, among others.
What this has to do with Iran, I have no idea.
“…the standard government line for several years has been that Iran is not more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves: If they reach a settlement with Israel, Iran will respect it.”
I would be delighted to believe this. Since it is true, please provide three cites of the Supreme Leader publically saying this. Since it is so clearly true, there couldn’t possibly be any problem in instantly providing such citations (hey, he must have said it many times, I’m sure, as have most of the members of the Guardian Council).
I will be most happy to help spread the good word about this as soon as I am armed with the proper profusion of citations. (Note: words from Khatami, or other known liberals below the level of the Guardian Council don’t count, do they?)
abb1 01.22.05 at 8:01 pm
Well, Gary, to look at this from another angle, do you have a reason to believe that council’s animosity to Israel is caused by anything but imperialistic character of Israeli politics? And, should peace and at least some kind of harmony be achieved there, why wouldn’t it satisfy the council?
There isn’t much hope of that happening, I know, but doesn’t it sound like a slightly better option than exchanging nuclear strikes?
jet 01.22.05 at 9:58 pm
Seth,
“Israel is the wild card here, and no one else.”
You make right wing talk radio sound so reasonable. Do you understand how crazy that sounds to people who disagree with you? Is it your intent to persuade, or to blast people with illogical rhetoric? Because one is usefull and the other counter-productive. But either way, good luck with all that and if I weren’t so interested in a functioning democracy, I’d egg you on.
seth edenbaum 01.22.05 at 11:17 pm
-I take the reformers in Iran very seriously.
I do not take the ‘reformers’ -call them moderates if you want- in Israel very seriously at all.
-What is the position of the reformers in Iran vis-a-vis the Iranian public?
What is the position etc. of the Israeli moderates?
-Whom is more worthy of our ‘constructive engagement,’ the Iranian government (and people) or the Israeli government (and people)?
-Which country is more politically isolated?
-Which has a higher percentage of extremists in its population.
-Which has a civic culture (as opposed to an official culture) based on hypocrisy and false history?
-Which is more likely to be a stable society at the end of its current crisis, and which is most likely to self destruct?
(take a wild guess.)
-In which country could I sit in a cafe and have a discussion of politics, of democracy and poilitical culture at large, and have a smaller chance of that conversation ending in embarrassment or anger?
-Which country has more than a passing resemblance to Rhodesia?
What I don’t sound like is an American. Which is why most of my friends are foreign born.
Jet, you should either change your name or get out more often.
Alireza 01.23.05 at 12:21 am
Gary: The policy I mentioned comes out of President Khatami’s government. No one in the Guardian Council makes foreign policy statements. Members may denounce a certain policy and endorse another at Friday Prayer sermons etc, but those do not bind anyone (and certainly not the government). The statements of Khatami and his cabinet do not contradict the policy of the Supreme Leader; if they did he would reject them immediately. Usually, when statements of this level of importance are concerned, the government (from Khatami on down) consults the Leader before saying anything. And even when Ayatollah Khamenei talks toughest about Palestine (which is basically when he says that the solution is for all Palestinian refugees to return and for a referendum to be held by all the “true” residents of the land, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, about the nature of any future state), this still doesn’t contradict the basic line that Iran will still not push for this “ideal” if the Palestinians themselves do not want it.
Gary Rosen 01.23.05 at 7:08 am
abb1:
“do you have a reason to believe that council’s animosity to Israel is caused by anything but imperialistic character of Israeli politics?”
Do you have any reason to believe that Israel’s hard-line policies, and the weakening of moderates over the years, is caused by anything other than 80 years of annihilationist rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim world, backed by numerous wars (going back to 1948 before the “refugee” problem even existed) started for the expressly stated purpose of “finishing what Hitler started”?
Gary Rosen 01.23.05 at 7:13 am
Seth:
“In which country could I sit in a cafe and have a discussion of politics, of democracy and poilitical culture at large, and have a smaller chance of that conversation ending in embarrassment or anger?”
Seth, how many discussions of “politics, democracy, and political culture at large” have you had in Israel, and in Iran? Just checking your sample size.
abb1 01.23.05 at 9:24 am
Gary,
I don’t think you’re correct about ’80 years of annihilationist rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim world’ and I don’t think it’s true that 1948 war started before the refugee problem existed.
Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine of May 15, 1948 states:
Not to mention leading Israeli historians (like Benny Morris).
So, the answer is: yes, I do have a reason to believe that Israel’s hard-line policies caused by something else than rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim world. I suspect radical Jewish nationalism and religious extremism played a role.
Thomas 01.23.05 at 4:02 pm
Why do I think that the glassyfication of Israel would bring instant retribution? Because a theoretical iranian government that did that would have just proven that it is willing and able to genocide people without cause, reason or provocation. Nobody can tolerate the continued existance of actors like that in the same world they occupy and that would mean instant mushroom clouds over Iran. But the actual iranians are not this insane.
seth edenbaum 01.23.05 at 8:53 pm
JERUSALEM (AP) – Israel has quietly seized large tracts of Jerusalem land owned by Palestinian residents of the West Bank after they were cut off from their property by Israel’s separation barrier, lawyers of the landowners said.
The land was taken after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government decided several months ago to enforce a long-dormant law that allows Israel to seize lands of Palestinians who fled or were driven out during the 1948-49 Mideast war that followed Israel’s creation. link
Gary Rosen 01.24.05 at 9:00 am
abb1:
“I don’t think you’re correct about ‘80 years of annihilationist rhetoric from the Arab and Muslim world”
Guess you don’t know about the Mufti, or don’t want to admit it:
http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/muftism.htm
As for the 1948 war and refugees, the fact is that Jews accepted the partition of Palestine and the Arabs didn’t, vowing extermination. Noted also is your acceptance of the fact that any refugees justify the intent to commit genocide against the Jews. And don’t accuse me of overstating the case, because that is exactly what the Arab states publicly and explicitly have advocated over and over again.
seth:
I’ll take your non-answer to my question as an admission you have never even been to Israel *or* Iran, much less spent a lot of time in cafes there debating politics.
seth edenbaum 01.24.05 at 10:50 pm
I’m a jew in NYC, Israelis are a dime a dozen.
There are plenty of Iranians too (I’ve slept with both.) And I am never going to Israel. Teheran, however, is on my short list.
Now go find yourself an Amos Kollek film festival and beproud.
tschuss.
Gary Rosen 01.25.05 at 8:49 am
Seth,
Thanks for acknowledging that you just completely made up your baloney about what goes on in cafes in Israel and Iran. But then you’ve *slept* with both Israelis and Iranians, I guess that means you must have an impartial, detached view of them both no doubt.
seth edenbaum 01.25.05 at 10:47 pm
Who says I “made it up”
Is it illogical to make assumptions based on past experience? Should I not listen to my friends? And do you think one visit to your utopia is going to make me a zionist?
“But you’re a Jew!” How many times have I heard that; as if nationalism trumps morality.
That’s Cynthia Ozick’s argument, and yours too I suppose.
It disgusts me.
I’m done.
Comments on this entry are closed.