On behalf of a grateful nation and lovers of peace all over the world, thank you President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry for successfully negotiating a nuclear disarmament deal with Iran along with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
The agreement will help to tamp down the right wing drumbeat for war heard loudest from chicken-hawk, warmonger Republicans and Israel’s conservative, extremist Likud party under Netanyahu.
Blessed are the Peacemakers.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Please share widely!
from Twitter:
Can you cite any quotes from Netanyahu about that? I know he has said he wants the deal to include Iran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist. And apparently, Iran’s leaders have said “the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.” It seems that it is Iran that wants war with Israel.
He may be smart enough to not use those exact words, but like Congressional Republicans he pretty clearly would rather have us on war footing than negotiate.
Iran is at the negotiating table. Israel is not.
Whatever Iran is or is not doing, Mr. Netanyahu is not pursuing peace.
From the Times of Israel:
From The Conversation:
From Ha’aretz: Netanyahu wanted to attack Iran, but got stuck in Gaza instead
Israel is our friend and ally, but we should not let their right-wing dictate our foreign policy. Foreign policy always has effects on domestic politics. Iran can’t have war with Israel, it would be a disaster for Iran. Israel, however, is a useful scapegoat. In spite of Ahmidinjad’s anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, it’s the Supreme Council that makes the decisions. This last round of sanctions hurt. We now have a good deal on the table. The problem is that the right-wing never truly feels safe.
on Iran’s nuclear facilities on a number of occasions; but I see this as different from sounding a drumbeat for war with Iran. The key word here is “preemptive,” which means that Netanyahu believes that Iran means to build a nuclear bomb for use against Israel.
That doesn’t necessarily imply that Netanyahu wants to go to war against Iran for war’s sake. He wasn’t talking about indiscriminate bombing of the country, but a surgical strike against its nuclear facilities.
In fact, Israel did carry out a preemptive attack against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 — an operation, which was later praised by Bill Clinton.
Critics of Netanyahu may consider it to be warmongering and beating the drum for war with Iran to have threatened preemptive strikes against its nuclear program. However, it’s very possible that Netanyahu’s statements in this regard helped drive the deal that Obama and Iran have concluded. If I were Obama, I would certainly have brought that up as a possibility if an acceptable deal was not reached.
Iran learned from the Osirak episode of more than thirty years ago, and LONG AGO hardened its facilities against such “surgical strikes”. The only effective action today is a nuclear attack. That reality is an important reason why the US is negotiating with Iran, because the US rightly seeks to avoid initiating nuclear war. With Mr. Netanyahu calling the shots in Israel, no such assurance is warranted.
The world saw the most likely outcome of a conventional “preemptive strike” after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The notion of starting a war to avoid war makes about as much sense as burning a village to save it. You seem to be attempting intellectual gymnastics to twist Mr. Netanyahu’s alarming desire for war into some peace-shaped pretzel. It’s not working.
Mr. Netanyahu’s relentless desire for war is an embarrassment to ALL parties — Israeli, American, and even Iranian — who seek peace.
it will make it true. I prefer to regard him as sincere in saying that he seek’s peace and believes that peace is more likely if Iran does not have a nuclear bomb.
I happen to support the deal that President Obama has negotiated with Iran, although I share some of Netanyahu’s concerns about it. I believe there is merit in Netanyahu’s desire that as part of the deal, Iran should formally recognize Israel’s right to exit. But I’m realistic enough to recognize that will probably never happen.
As far as intellectual gymnastics, I think my position is pretty straightforward. Whether Netanyahu’s idea of a preemptive strike against Iran makes sense or not, it was undoubtedly a factor in the negotiations over the deal between Obama and Iran. I think it can be seen as having helped Obama in the negotiations.
It’s a classic good-cop/bad-cop scenario. Obama may well have said, ‘Hey, my friend Bibi is itching to bomb you guys if you go any further with your uranium enrichment program. Make a deal with me and not only will we lift the economic sanctions, but Bibi will not start a war against you. Frankly, I have little control over Bibi in that regard.’
Pretty powerful negotiating position. It’s even possible that there has been more cooperation between Obama and Netanyahu in this deal that we have been led to believe. Who really knows?
I’m glad that you support the deal on the table, and I agree with you that the posture of Mr. Netanyahu may well have helped the US close this deal.
At this point, I sincerely hope that there are no “surprises” — especially military surprises — between now and when the deal is finalized.
I was just at the ratification of my teacher’s contract. About 25% of those present opposed it. In spite of fiscal realities, cuts in surrounding school systems, and a lot of hard, agonizing work by our negotiations committee, they couldn’t stop bitching about it. I think this is the nature of negotiations and thus treaties: there is always room for concern because there’s a requisite high degree of trust. And trust is something the right-wing is known for.
I gave examples of Netanyahu’s warmongering, but the practical fact of the matter is that surgical strikes are no longer possible with Iran’s nuclear program. After the last Israeli bombings, which incidentally, I didn’t oppose, the Iranians shielded their nuclear production with civilians. Any attack that kills huge numbers of civilians would likely cause a war, a war we wouldn’t want to start or engage in.
Netanyahu wants us to go to war with Iran.
We should not agree to a deal that does not include that.
Israel’s right to exist. But I think Netanyahu ultimately will accept the deal anyway. Already, he’s beginning to moderate his opposition to it.
That supports my theory that Netanyahu is ultimately a pragmatist who may have cooperated with Obama more than we think over the deal.
Not only was there the implied if not explicit threat that Netanyahu might act on his own to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if an acceptable deal was not concluded, but the harder Netanyahu stamped his foot and complained about the deal, the more attractive the deal must have seemed to Iran. Now, I think we’re going to see Netanyahu slowly come around to supporting the deal. His job now will be to help sell it to our own Republican-controlled Congress.
Saudi Arabia is one one of our closest allies in the region. It is ruled by an even more fundamentalist strain of Islam than Iran, it has an even worse record on women’s rights and rights for religious minorities, and it is even more belligerent in sponsoring proxy armies in the region and funding terror campaigns against Israel in the past. It also refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Yet it is our closest ally, and it is well known that the Saudi elite are fairly pro-Israeli in their actions even if their rhetoric is rather anti-semitic. They do symbolic stuff like paying benefits to the widows and orphans of Palestinian suicide bombers to get the Arab street to continue to view them as protectors of the holy sites-but they also let Mossad kill Hamas agents on it’s own soil and obviously have a high degree of coordination with the Israeli and American intelligence services, military and governments.
Egypt and Jordan were secret allies of Israel long before they officially recognized the state, and even Egypt had to hedge by recognizing the Israeli peoples right to state rather than the actual state itself.
Lastly, we still do not recognize Iran’s regimes right to exist or govern its people and we just concluded a very high level negotiation with them. It’s usually something you get at the end of a negotiation, having it by the pretext for negotiations to start has been a great way for Bibi to avoid doing any serious diplomacy with his Arab counterparts.
Israel’s right to exist accomplish? Nothing, other than kill the deal. It would be a non-starter internally for Iran. And even if it weren’t a non-starter, they could say they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and not mean it. They could still secretly fund and support Hezbollah.
This “right to exist” thing is a canard. Israel exists because we support it, they have a strong military, and they have the Samson option. Does the United States exist because it has a right to exist?
downrated by a sock puppet.
All that is is something Netanyahu threw up at the last minute, because it would be a deal breaker. I am tired of the US carrying Netanyahu’s water.
It mystifies me that the Republican party– once reliably realist, responsible protectors of US interests and sovereignty, no longer is any of those things. Now it is the proponent of fear-based foreign policy, driven by shitty cable TV talk shows.
Nope.
The alternative to this kind of deal is… what, exactly? Invading Iran? To protect Israel’s interests? No thanks.
politically progressive sites. But I hope people will think more carefully about the role Netanyahu has played in the negotiations over the Iran deal and at least acknowledge the potentially positive impact he has had in getting the deal done.
I’m not saying Netanyahu always comes across as a humble political figure or even a steady voice of reason or accommodation, but his role as a critic of the deal was carefully calculated, in may view, and helpful to Obama. I think that together, Obama and Netanyahu have duped Iran into viewing the deal as potentially more harmful to Israel’s interests than it actually is, and therefore as more attractive to Iran than it actually is.
If that’s the case, Obama and Netanyahu have also duped the progressive political community in the U.S. I think we’re going to find out that Netanyahu is not really against this deal and never really was. He does not want war with Iran and knows the futility of unilaterally trying to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. He also knows that negotiating a deal like this with Iran is ultimately the only way to protect Israel’s security in the long term.
But Netanyahu also knows that if he were to have supported the deal in any way while it was being negotiated, it would have made it virtually impossible for Iran to have accepted it. He had to play the role of critic and he did it very well.
I don’t think you are because I don’t think he has ever dealt with peace issues in good faith, and is able to do that largely because he has a blank check from the USA. Maybe that is what let him play bad cop credibly here.
It sure seems to me like his vision for Israel is a single state in which non-Arabs are citizens and Arabs are subjects.
I am about ready to let those blank checks bounce.
Perhaps you’re correct.
My immediate reaction is that you’re attempting to turn very sour lemons into lemonade. I find both Mr. Netanyahu’s stunt with the GOP and the letter sent by Senate Republicans to Iran to be egregious violations of common sense and courtesy. I agree wholeheartedly with CMD that the GOP seems bent on turning international diplomacy into another shitty cable TV talk show.
I sincerely hope the deal happens.
so i have a question for you.
how is israel trying to draw a red line on iran diff from JFK doing same with cuba? not a perfect analogy, but commonality is plausible existential threat.
The residents of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. But Israel the state doesn’t have any rights; it is merely something the Israeli people have devised to protect and promote their interests.
The same is true of the United States of America; it’s something we created to preserve and promote our common interests. So, let Israel mind its own business, and stop meddling in ours! We’ve had enough of war.
Wherever I’ve had issue with Obama’s foreign policy it is where his Wilsonian idealism has gotten in the way of realism.
This makes a ton of sense from a realist perspective. Iran has every incentive as a rising power to seek hegemony over its neighbors and pursue power parity with its closet regional rival, Israel. It is what every rising power in history as done. To have one multilaterally disarm with global inspections is unprecedented and would be Obama’s greatest diplomatic achievement, and frankly, one of the hardest any President ever pulled off. Harder in some respects, than ending the Cold War peacefully when we consider that the Iranians are under far less internal pressure to surrender their power than the Soviets were.
The other nice thing about this is, if Iran cheats, renegs on the agreement, or violates the inspections regime in significant ways, it is now breaking relations with all the other major powers of the world. A military response to Iran under this scenario would still be a terrible thing, but at least we would have UN sanction and a truly multilateral coalition.
We would have neither of those things if we or Israel fired the first shot after pulling out of this agreement. That would be the mark of an irrational actor. Iran is acting rationally, despite no real reason to do so, and despite recent history that the West has still chosen to punish regimes that played by its rules (Saddam and Qadaffi).
Territory? There would be a Palestinian state if the right to exist was recognized. Trade? Tax credits?
The success of MAD in the Soviet era happened because both sides saw no use in using weapons that would pollute the earth and territory for generations. We have no such guarantee of pragmatic self-interest here.
The executions of Christian students in Kenya. The destruction of millenia-old artifacts for violating idolatry. The routine kidnapping and raping of female children as a religious perk. The brutal enslavement and disfiguring of religious rivals.
It is safe to say that we don’t have a lot of shared values.
I know progressives really want to think that all issues are subject to rational and economic compromise but it isn’t always true.
The resistance to admitting that all Jews and unvelievers gave no place in this world is a clue that they might just think a radioactive wasteland where Isreal used to be would be a fine thing.
And then it woukd be too late to say – Whoops! Guessed wrong!
Actually Shiites and Sunnis have even fewer shared values than the Iranians and Americans do. Radical SUNNI Islamist assaults on Christians have nothing to do with Shia regime in Tehran, particularly as that regime is being killed/actively killing our mutual Sunni enemies in the Islamic State, which are affiliated with the groups that are carrying out heinous acts in Africa. If we continue to conflate all the Islamist regimes as one monolithic bloc than we make the exact fucking mistake we made in Vietnam by failing to recognize the Sino/Soviet split, believing the domino theory, or failing to see that we were involved in an ethnic civil war rather than an ideological one. So I would tread lightly with those comparisons, particularly as they invoke a religious dichotomy between Judeo-Christian values and a monolithic Islam that frankly doesn’t exist.
Iran feared Al Qaeda and the Taliban far more than we did, far earlier, and actually offered significant intelligence for us to use during our initial campaign against both foes in the early days of 9/11. Had Bush not used the Axis of Evil rhetoric, and had we not invaded their neighbor who complied with international agreements to disarm (proven by the total lack of WMDs after the fact) and totally destabilized it, they wouldn’t have the presence and influence in Iraq that they do now.
Is Iran actively sponsoring internal armies* that are trying to destabilize Israel or the US, or is that just us with them?
It would be just as fair for me to say I know all conservatives are too dumb and racist to recognize which Islamist regimes are rational and which are not, but I won’t do that since it would belittle the intelligence of conservatives, some of whom, are rightly concerned about this deal.
Iran is not a suicidal regime. It is interested in self preservation and maintaining the Islamic revolution within it’s territorial sphere of influence. Unlike ISIS, which it is fighting I might add, it does not take the Koran’s theories regarding the ‘borders of the faithful’ and the need to expand forever as seriously or as literally as you might think. It’s main goal is defending its regime.
We have overthrown Iranian regimes in the past, overthrew its neighbor, and overthrew Qaddafi after he disarmed and after he made significant concessions and agreement with the US. And our own Senate and Congress just made it clear they don’t back the President, so they have even less reason to trust us. If anything, both sides are taking a great leap of faith here.
The Ayatollah’s greatest threat to power is internal dissent from his, surprisingly Westernized and cosmopolitan people, and the external sanctions that are crippling their economy. By allowing a reformer to win the Presidency this time, he avoided a repeat of the Green Revolution protests, and by allowing a global inspections regime he can ensure he gets nuclear power (which this oil dependent country could actually use to electrify saving its oil for export only) and open up his markets.
As for the Jewish stuff, should we also say Israel is an irrationally racist actor since its leader clearly doesn’t feel Arabs that are citizens are worthy of voting or has repeatedly made clear the Palestinian state doesn’t have a right to exist? He has also allowed parties into his government that believe in oppressing women and expelling all minorities from the borders of his country.
I am not arguing Israel is equivalent to Iran rhetorically here, Iran is a lot worse, but I am saying that a lot of this rhetoric depends on your perspective. The only difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran is that Saudi Arabia’s brand of Islamism is significantly worse, it’s human rights abuses are worse, and it’s our ally instead of our enemy. No need for Iran not to be made into a frenemy and trading partner like China and Cuba, and gradually, turned from a friend to a foe thanks to the power of the market i thought conservatives were supposed to believe in.
Were they to bomb Israel they would also incinerate and irradiate a shit ton of Muslims, including Palestinians whom Iranians identify with and provide material support to. It would also irradiate and endanger its allies in Hezbollah and Syria, not to mention, irradiate and endanger its own people who would be totally wiped out by Israeli and American responses.
Iran lacks a second strike capability, and couldn’t conceivably get one for another 2-3 decades. Israel alone already has that capability vis a vis Iran, so even in the event that Iran wanted to wipe out Israel it could not do so without letting all of its own citizens and people and regime die. Why would a regime let itself die?
There has been no regime like that in human history, even the Nazi’s made rational strategic and tactical decisions even if it was in the interest of an irrational and racist ideology, it was only in the last year of the war that this regime started acting irrationally, which is why its own members almost succeeded in putting it down. A similar power struggle ensued in Japan, another racist ideological regime, and the rational forces one while the irrational leaders died in a failed coup attempt. When faced with nuclear annihilation, even an emperor trained at birth to believe he was a god and revered as such by his entire nation, was capable of seeing the light.
The Ayatollah has a history of rationally self interested actions in defense of regime, it’s no accident Rouhani was allowed to get elected even if he personally dislikes him and preferred his opponent. And it was a conscious effort at rebranding and keeping his internal and external foes at bay, something an irrational actor would refuse to consider since purity to the revolution would outweigh such considerations.
Then in their supreme and cosmopolitan rationality, since they are nothing like USIS, etc., then they should gave no problem admitting that Isreal had a right to exist and we should hold out for that in the agreement since it is a mere bagatelle to them but important to do many others.
It is Israel and America that hold the double standard here. We don’t recognize this regime, and actively fund and arm it’s internal opponents (some of whom are quite nasty), and yet we insist they have to recognize a third party that refused to join these negotiations and tried to sabatauge them? A regime that overthrew it’s predecessor regime that lost popular support, in part, by being a puppet of America and the oldest Near Eastern ally of Israel?
Now who is being irrational?
Iran has nothing to gain from recognizing Israel. It would severely undermine the regimes claims to rule as protectors of Islam and defenders of Muslims outside of it’s borders, it would jeopardize it’s alliances with Assad and Hezbollah, and it would undermine it’s war on the Islamic State which would then be emboldened to assert that it is the true heir/protector of Islam.
Why are we asking Iran to do something suicidal when we have not asked something similar of our Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, or the other sponsors of Palestinian terror that we consistently arm and support?
Let me be absolutely clear. I abhor the Iranian regime and it’s virulent anti-semetism, abuse of human rights, etc., but when we recognize that literally every Arab ally of ours in the neighborhood shares the same views on Israel and Judaism that our Persian foe does, it should demonstrate that this is a wash.
I am no wide eyed liberal idealist, nor am I a Chomsky leftist automatically inclined to oppose American power. If anything, I come from the Kissinger/Baker/Scowcroft school that sometimes you have to get in bed with nasty people for the greater good of global order and stability.
And in this case, disarming Iran diplomatically just makes a lot more sense than disarming it militarily. The alternative to this agreement is a nuclear armed Iran, which I think we all agree would be bad, or a war to disarm it, which would be even worse.
accident. I was using my phone.
Since you’ve been making similar points, I am sure I am guilty of doing this to every other poster here at least once or twice.
Well explained…. I just pray that your phone has no iCBM app installed.
Continuing to assert Netanyahu-themed bumperstickers does not advance the peace process or are discussion of it.
It doesn’t sound as though you’re listening to the long series of solid and rational reasons to NOT do this. You certainly aren’t responding to those reasons.
Which might be one of the few policy fields where there is usually an objective, pragmatic, and technocratic answer to a pressing policy problem rather than an ideological one. No state in history has been governed purely by ideological concerns. Our relationship with Israel was always governed by a careful balancing between our ideological sympathy with Zionist democracy and a realist approach to what was in the best interests of the United States in that region when they differed with Israel.
It is why Republican presidents like Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush I were able to exert sticks as well as carrots to bring ideological Israeli leaders around to the pragmatic side on the Suez crisis, Lebanon, and negotiations with the PLO. Bush I witholding settlement aide toppled Shamir and led directly to a more pragmatic government that worked with us and the PLO in Madrid and Oslo.
To me, it is entirely fair to blame Arafat for the collapse of Camp David and the terrorism that followed, but nothing the Israeli’s have done since the Gaza disengagement has helped the cause of Abbas, the last moderate leader the Palestinians will likely have.
It is unfortunate we can’t have an honest debate about Israel in this country, since there is a real anti-Israeli sentiment on the left that blames Israel firsts and refuses to recognize the immoderate tendencies of the Palestinian side and this has been met with an equal and opposition reaction on the Israeli and American right towards immoderate and extremist solutions. The center is barely holding and the window is closing, this agreement gets the Iranian threat off the table and forces Israel to once again turn inward and start asking tough questions regarding the fate of its occupied territories and the stateless people that live there.
…an admission that the state can continue to exist is a relatively benign condition.
Would we have allowed support for apartheid because that was a cultural norm? Do we tolerate the Muslim execution of gays and the rape of women because it is an ancient custom? (um…whoops…)
As long as Iran enriches uranium and refuses to promise not to obliterate all Jews, you will have a hard time gaining support for this agreement.
Just like the issue of women and gays, why should Israel be treated any differently? If we tolerate anti-Israeli views from our allies, why must we demand a rejection of those same views from foes we are hoping to turn into friends? In my book, Israel lost the right to demand concessions and corollaries to this agreement the second Netenyahu publicly knifed our policy in front of Congress. There are consequences for those actions, and he lost any seat at the table as far as I am concerned.
Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but not to assume it can do no wrong. A bit of a different topic, but if Israel were truly committed to peace they would stop building settlements, which is gratuitously provocative IMO. As for any conflict between Israel and Iran my own position is that if Iran hits Israel first the US should be first in line to back Israel, but if Israel strikes first they can be on their own.
If Israel strikes first it HAS been on its own and has not done badly.
If Iran strikes first with a nuclear weapon it will be interesting to see how we would then ‘back’ them. Doubtless with a finger shaking at Iran that would rival the bright red line over chemical weapons.
I don’t understand where either of you intend to lead us with these arguments.
First off, do you at least concede that if either Israel OR Iran strikes first, it is a disaster for the entire world, not to mention an utter failure of US diplomacy (which either scenario would make moot and academic)?
What do you MEAN when you talk of an Israeli first strike? We already know that only a nuclear strike would have any effect at all. The primary result of any Israeli first strike would be the massacre of an enormous number of Iranian civilians. An almost certain second result would be a nuclear response against Israel by Russia, China, or somebody else.
Suppose Iran strikes first, with a nuclear weapon. What you have us do? Should we immediately nuke Iran in response? What do you think the other nuclear powers of the world (specifically including Russia and China) would do?
I suggest that if EITHER side initiates a nuclear exchange, the most important question on the table is how many nukes would end being launched and at whom.
I don’t think either nation is worth sacrificing the entire world for. Apparently some of us disagree.
Finally, THIS is why I so adamantly believe that mixing religion and government is so toxic and so dangerous. If it were as simple as standing aside while two lunatics kill each other, that would be one thing. Instead, we have two lunatics who threaten to end human civilization — driven primarily by religious fervor.
Suppose Iran strikes first, with a nuclear weapon. What you have us do? Should we immediately nuke Iran in response? What do you think the other nuclear powers of the world (specifically including Russia and China) would do?–
Both of them would piss and moan, no more-no less. And my judgment about this is, I believe, more valid than your assumption about all out nuclear war. I do not think you are aware of the abject fear of the Russians, in particular, of American power.
…I didn’t say anything about a strike being nuclear. I hope and assume that neither country wants to start that.
Israel has had nuclear capacity for years and had NOT used it despite repeated attacks and bombings. They have demonstrated restraint under provocation.
Iran has a history as a terrorist rogue state and others hete explain that they cannot agree that Israel can exist as that is not an acceptable point of view in that society. We have decided that it is acceptable for them to continue to enrich uranium for…um….electricity. Because there is no petroleum in the region and no sun for solar power in a desert.
What war?
has a history as a terrorist rogue state.
Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Cuba, and, oh yeah, Iran.
Why should the Iranians look at us any differently than we look at them? We overthrew their democratically elected government and supported their repressive regime for 30 years. I’m on Team America, but I’m not going to forget what we’ve done to other countries. That tribalist crap is the GOP shtick.
I’m confused by our discussion then. “First strike” has implied nuclear for as long as I’ve heard the term used.
Israel already has a nuclear capability. Iran will get it, sooner or later. The intent of the current deal with Iran is to delay that time as long as possible. We’ve already established that Iran long ago hardened its facilities against conventional attacks like the Israeli 1981 episode.
If Israel mounts a first CONVENTIONAL attack against Iran, then I agree that they’re on their own. If Iran mounts an unprovoked CONVENTIONAL attack against Israel, then I agree that the US defends Israel with the full conventional might and power of our military. None of this, however, needs to be discussed — our commitment to defend Israel has been the bedrock of our ME policy for generations.
It seems to me that the focus of our discussion right now is on a NUCLEAR first strike.
@edgarthearmenian: I am less confident than you of how Russia, China, or other nuclear powers would respond to nuclear attack against Iran. I suggest that abject fear increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood of a nuclear response.
Obama was foolish to use the red line rhetoric with Syria, it was obviously a campaign gambit and Assad saw right through it. He had every rational reason to test us. Launching chemical weapons helped him stay in power, so it was a heinous and profoundly immoral but rationally self interested act. And doing so in direct defiance of the US built his internal credibility. Either we back down and he wins or we fight him and he gets to rally the country against imperialist outsiders and foreign fighters, maybe even get a temporary truce with the Islamist fighters to fight the Great Satan and wipe out the ‘moderates’ it is arming. And we had every reason not to go into that five sided fight. The Syrian Civil War, with the exception of ISIL, has been a fantastic quagmire for the Iranian military akin to the US arming the mujahadeen against the Soviets. And ISIL is the blowback just like AQ was.
Anyway, back to Iran. There is no rational reason for them to test the nuclear umbrella the US has around Israel. Israel has a robust second strike capability. Iran has the ability to make 3-5 total bombs in the next five years. Even if they bomb Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other major cities with Hiroshima grade bombs, the Israeli’s have 200 thermonuclear warheads ready to completely destroy Iran.
There is no reason anyone would do something suicidal, you would have to believe they want to kill Jews (and many many Muslims) more than save their own lives. And no regime on Earth thinks like that, and when it does, internal forces ensure the sociopaths are removed or at least attempt to as the July 1944 plot tried to do, and the many thwarted assassination and coup attempts against the Kims attest to.
Krushcev said he would bury us, Castro said he was willing to sacrifice his nation at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, their bark was louder than their bite or we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. Rhetoric means very little in foreign policy, actions always matter more than words.
I’m sure the Israeli radicals in the West Bank would move out in a second if the Palestinians recognized Israel’s “right to exist.”
I’m not arguing in favor of the Palestinians. It’s not like they’re rational, but I’m not going accept every commonplace of Israel.
Iran killed Christians Kenya? Iran supports ISIS? Are all muslims the same?
Clearly Neftali Bennet and Hamas are irrational, while Abbas and Bibi are rational, the latter coldly so. Unfortunately, while I am deft enough to recognize his push against the Palestinian state at the end of his campaign as the naked base pandering it was, a lot of international actors view it as his true colors which will lead to needless diplomatic and economic isolation.
The other tragedy of recent history is that Gaza disengagement emboldened Hamas rather than Fatah. Had Fatah been able to govern Gaza, as it has somewhat successfully governed the West Bank, we might have seen an easing of tensions on both sides. Instead, the folks that should have a state are struck with intransigent settlers, and the folks that were allowed to see the settlers leave had no business governing a state.
Well, we know what Israeli settlers do when Israel compromises with the Palestinians. They leave or get “evacuated” by the Israeli government, as in Gaza. So I don’t know why you would think that in the context of a peace settlement Israeli settlers on the West Bank, outside of the areas that by agreement will remain part of Israel, would stay put.
Though isn’t the West Bank more heavily settled? (I don’t know the answer).
Opinion was almost evenly split on evacuating Gaza. Maybe there will be a time where the Israelis would swap land for peace, but it’s hard to imagine under this now as Israel is drifting farther and farther to the right.
They number a significantly larger share of the population of the West Bank than they do with Gaza, they are settlers on holy sites and cities like Hebron where there were none in Gaza, and the Gazan settlers were largely secular kibbutzer who got along well with their Palestinian neighbors while West Bank settlements are walled off compounds subject to increasingly strict religious governance. Jewish women have been stoned for wearing the wrong kind of dress by some of the more radical settlers.
Nobody argued Israel had a biblical right to own Gaza, while it’s the majority opinion of West Bank settlers that they have a right to all of the West Bank. Gazan settlers had no party in parliament, West Bank settlers have the Bennett party and now the Likud party that vigorously defends their rights to annex Area C entirely into Israel. Doing so prevents a Palestinian state.
So yes, an evacuation is possible but will be incredibly difficult politically and challenging logistically, with some of the more partisan religious settlers arguing it’s ‘Israel’ due to their presence whether they are part of the state or not. They won’t go quietly without a fight.
These people now live together, and they will eventually have to learn to get along.
Al-Shabab, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qa`ida, and Boko Haram are all of them Salafist groups; among other things, they are inveterate enemies of Iran, whose people are Ithna`ashari Shias.
If we had any business taking sides in these affairs — which we don’t — then surely Shiite Iran would be a better ally against these groups than Saudi Arabia, whose Salafist regime dates from the eighteenth century and is the ideological father to all the extremist groups.
I had no idea my 2 simple sentences would generate such a stimulating debate and thoughtful dialogue.
I’m still awed at the quality of diplomatic scholarship
on BMG. Just reading you is an education!
Thank you all for caring and sharing.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
1) Do nothing and let Iran get the bomb
While some folks like Chomsky are ok with this and view disarmament, either by diplomacy or coercion as profoundly imperialistic and unfair, seeing that the US has more weapons than any other power and MAD worked for us and the Russians, it would be the worst option. It would lead to a Saudi-Iranian nuclear arms race, destroy what’s left of the NPT, and destabilize an region already mired in an ethnic and religious civil war and arm both camps with nuclear weapons. This is the worst outcome, even if some folks on the left think it isn’t.
2) We disarm Iran by force
This is the second worse outcome. The US would win, and unlike Iraq, we would have no desire to occupy territory or create democracy. But we would have to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and engage in a long and protracted conventional war, one that would probably break the back of our overextended military and severely limit our ability to respond to other crises. A terrible outcome, and one that might lead to direct nuclear conflict under a host of different scenarios.
3) Diplomatic disarmament
Thomas Schelling is an IR scholar at MIT who devoted most of his academic career to the study of the Cuban missile crisis, and he has a theory called compellance, whereby a combination of brinkmanship, trip wiring, and blockade/sanctions can lead to a state to be pressured to do something by another state. We essentially force it to be in our foes interest to do what we say, a modern variation on Thucydides famous quote that the strong do as they will and the weak do as they must.
This is what Obama has done in Iran. Brinkmanship via the stuxnet attack to degrade their capabilities, an economic and military blockade to starve their regime and choke their resources, and the threat of military response with appropriate trip wires, including our naval presence in the Gulf and Med. And it brought them to the table, and they have agreed to unprecedented inspections of their weapons capabilities, getting these capabilities again under strict compliance only after 2030, by which time they will be obsolete.
The third outcome is the best outcome, and frankly, the only one.
4. continue/tighten economic sanctions?
The sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy were the means to the end of disarmament of outcome 3. Rejecting the agreement just to continue the sanctions makes crippling the Iranian economy an end in of itself leading us either to outcome 1 or outcome 2, neither of which is preferable to outcome 3 which is the fruit of our successful sanctions.
During the Cold War, we were taught that only American military power kept the Soviets from meddling in the affairs of countries all over the globe, spreading chaos and insurgency in pursuit of world Communism.
Now the Soviets are gone, and it is we who are meddling in other countries’ affairs, spreading chaos and insurgency in pursuit of “freedom”. Does anyone else find this ironic?
He invents new demands that have nothing to do with Israel’s actual security–he has made a pattern of doing this to undermine negotiations.
He may bluster, but Israel cannot hope to repeat its 1981 strike on Iraq with any hope of success. Israel has no military solution to the Iranian nuclear program.
He actually cannot count on the US bombing Iran.
He is trying to undermine the current agreement by bossing around Congress, but if Congress manages to stop the current agreement, and in he process enormously damages and undermines respect for the US, the international sanctions regime will collapse and Iran will be able to proceed with its nuclear program.
I
Here’s a fact that the GOP/AIPAC/Netanyahu folks won’t admit to. The international sanctions regime didn’t happen by itself. It was President Obama who successfully negotiated the sanctions with Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia. By itself, that was an amazing diplomatic feat. If the GOP/AIPAC/Netanyahu coalition succeeds and scuttles the Iran agreement, then the international sanctions regime will collapse. China, and other countries, will resume trade with Iran. Unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. will be ineffective without international support.
….that as we hear about who was involved in these talks that Israel was conspicuous by its absence. Was Israel invited to join? If not, why not, and if so, why didn’t they accept? If Netanyahu’s going to bluster all over the place my response is put up or shut up. Either pull up a chair to the negotiating table or leave the adults alone while they try. You do want to ultimately rid yourself of the fear of Iran, right?
Iran would not participate if they were and apparently Sec. Kerry sees no problem with that. It’s not like it might affect them in any way.
The administration had been provididing what they thought Israel was entitled to know but froze them out of updates entirely after the address to Congress.
has 200 nukes and refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Really Peter, you usually put at least a little thought into your writing.
Why should they be a party at talks they refused to join and which they actively and very publicly tried to thwart by illegally lobbying our Congress directly. No other foreign power, not even Britain, ever got the opportunity Netenyahu had to so publicly break with a President. It’s okay if Israel does it is not a valid policy argument, and one that subverts the security interests of both states to the political interests of Netenyahu.
This time their bleating for more senseless and counter-productive foreign adventures with other peoples’ sons and daughters is also going to cost them the Presidency.
Look at the polls. They are overwhelming. The American zeitgeist is just not blowing the warmongers’ way this time. Thank God…and thank the Peacemakers who thankfully remain with us – including President Barack Obama, Secretary John Kerry, and Secretary Hillary Clinton.
On the one hand, polls show up to 40% of Republicans support the deal while 40% are on the fence and 20% are adamantly opposed. Seems like they are out of touch with their own party, let alone, independents on this issue. The power of the donor class and the disconnect it has with the public might be most palpable on questions of foreign policy.
Chuck Schumer needs to come around quick.
It used to be that politics ended at the water’s edge. Now it seems to me that the Republicans have given up all pretense of caring about anything but power and the getting thereof. They want war and will stop at nothing to sabotage the President’s best efforts to work with Iran.
And it isn’t going to matter what popular opinion may be, either among voters as a whole or Rpublican voters, I think.
…that the Congressional GOP has been out of step with their own constituents.
in person tonight and she confirmed to me that the war hawk Republicans in Congress are hell bent on denying President Obama a peaceful diplomatic resolution to this problem.
I say screw the warmongers, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead for peace.
And puke heads are exploding at the prospect of Pope Francis addressing Congress in September when His Holiness will castigate the demagogic war profiteers
and bless the peacemakers.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
One wonders if we are watching the decades-long unholy alliance between the GOP and Roman Catholic church finally unravel as Pope Francis reasserts the values that should have been driving his institution all along.