From me @OTB (all in the context of recent Obama speeches and reactions thereto):
![]() ![]() |
Information | |
ARCHIVES
April 2012
January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 |
By Steven L. Taylor
From me @OTB (all in the context of recent Obama speeches and reactions thereto): By Steven L. Taylor
On the one, there appears to be a relaxing of Turkey-Israel tensions. On the other, there may be some new tensions within the Israeli government. From me at OTB: Informal Talks Between the Turks and Israelis (and Some Cabinet Trouble in Israel?) By Steven L. Taylor
Things have been busy and blogging light, although here a few short posts from the last two days from me over at OTB: By Steven L. Taylor
John Bolton writes in today’s WSJ, Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran:
He goes on to note that the US is not going to engage in such a strike and therefore the ball, so to speak, is in Israel’s court. I have been of the opinion for some time that a nuclear, or near-nuclear,1 Iran is an inevitability for some time.2 This does not make me happy, but then again the world does not exist to make me (or anyone else) happy. Bolton is certainly correct that sanctions are not going to work—but that has been obvious to anyone who knows anything about the history of such sanctions. As such, one has to address the reality such as it is. First is the fact that a military strike is not guaranteed to work—indeed, based on what I had read even a massive strikes is not guaranteed to work. This is not a situation, as so many keep making it out to be, of a simple strike against a single target, like the Israeli strike in Iraq in the 1980s. The Iranians have fortified their positions and have not put all their nuclear eggs in the same basket. Further, facilities are in, as I understand it, populated areas—including the holy city of Qom.3 The difficulties and ramifications of an attack are significant and should not ignored. And even if a strike does work, one should note that even Bolton acknowledges that such an attack would only be a temporary set-back to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The temporary nature of such a hypothetical victory has to figure prominently in a cost/benefit analysis. Second, the argument that the Iranians are undeterable is unpersuasive as it is based on really on just one argument, i.e., the that Iranians are really, really religious and believe in am afterlife:
This is basically the “Iranians are Crazeeee” hypothesis. Yes, it is true that it has been possible to deploy suicide bombers who engage in their activities because of their beliefs in an eternal reward. However, I would note that one cannot extrapolate from that that the Iranians (or Muslims) in general are all in a big hurry to die, let alone the elites. At the risk of making some people angry, I would point out that the vast majority of Americans also believe in an afterlife, and Evangelicals in particular speak in a language that is a lot closer to that of radical Islamists in terms of the afterlife than we are likely comfortable admitting.4. I can say this with great confidence as one who has attended Evangelical churches since I was quite young. Any given Sunday or Wednesday can find talk of wishing to hasten the return of the Messiah and/or talk of the fact that this life is temporary or ultimately unimportant. Oddly enough, however, said persons do not leave the services and commit suicide so as to more quickly enter into paradise (nor, by the way, do the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims). Most people who believe in such things see it as a comfort for after death, not as a goal to pursue today. Persons in power especially tend to wish to forestall entry into eternity. Ahmadenijad may speak of wanting to help usher in the return of the Mahdi and/or speak of the afterlife, but oddly enough he shows up for work everyday. Also, the presence of young men and women willing to die for a cause they believe in is less foreign to global experience than some make it out to be. At a minimum, one cannot extrapolate out from suicide bombers to apply to an entire class of people. In other words, people like Bolton as taking the behavior of a tiny fringe of the Muslim world and pretending like that should be used to understand the minds of Iran’s elites and general population. I am not trying to enter into simplistic moral equivalencies here, but rather am trying to point out that human nature is more constant that Bolton and others want to make it out to be and that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a nuclear Iran was be an deterrable as any other nuclear state has been. I would further note that we don’t have only Cold War examples to work with here, as the North Koreans have had a nuclear capability for some time, and have a leader who is of dubious stability, and yet they have not used the bomb either. Third, it should be further noted that a military strike could spark a wider conflict. The US has troops on Iran’s West (Iraq) and East (Afghanistan)—can we really afford/handle a widening conflagration in the region? Beyond that, the price of oil would skyrocket if a conflict arose in the region. That would destroy whatever ground we have gained in terms of economic recovery and possible send us into a deeper economic crisis. Is this really worth risking? I know, by the way, that I am largely repeating myself on this subject, but it seems to me rather important to argue against another war in the region. Supporters of a military strike frequently over-hype the risks of a nuclear Iran while ignoring the almost certain consequences of an attack. I am not sure that that can be pointed out too infrequently.
|
blog advertising is good for you Visitors Since 2/15/03
|
Powered by WordPress