Sun. Jul 16, 2006
Old Fires, New Smoke?
Fires in the Middle East are not exactly a rare occurrence during the (nearly) forty eight years I’ve been alive. Nor are arguments about who started the most recent fire. But the smell of the smoke from this one seems distinctly different to me.
It’s hard to lay a finger on exactly why, but I’ll try. Part of it seems to be the shifting nature of states and non-states as they war against each other in this “New Millennium.”
Israel left Lebanon six years ago. Israel left Gaza last year, behind a wall. While the unilateral withdrawal strategy hoped all this “leaving” might result in them being left alone, it hasn’t exactly worked out that way.
But the other thing that happened in both places was elections. A fairly free vote in both cases, if not “democracy” as we recognize it in the US. The result was what one might predict in such “factionalized/failed states.” Extremists gained some control and power via legitimate means, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Then went back to behaving in their old illegitimate ways.
But it’s different now. They are part of a government, whether they are acting on its behalf or with its permission or not.
I really have no desire to get into a discussion about who started this round of violence, or who issued a tit before that following tat. To get to the root of that, you have to go back so far that it is quite removed from the circumstances of today. Besides, the “undecideds” on the question of Arabs and Israelis are a fraction of a percent, larger only than the group of those who are “decided but sway-able.”
In other words, such argument is pretty pointless for all concerned. So be it.
So if we stick to the most recent events, we have an attack by first Hamas and then Hezbollah on Israeli military positions on their border. In the perverse world of events in the Middle East, one must almost give acknowledgement for the fact it was a “military on military” attack, not the random killing of civilians. That, of course, came later. As it always does in the Middle East, no matter who is fighting.
Then there’s the question of whether Israel’s attacks are a “proportional response” to the kidnapping on one soldier in the south and two in the north. Well, first of all, anyone expecting a “proportional response” from Israel when they feel they are under attack has not paid even a tiny bit of attention for any of the past fifty years of their history.
Just as it has been shown that some Americans were often clueless and flat wrong in their assessment and judgement of the Iraqi people, their culture, and mindset after decades of tyranny, perhaps some Americans should consider the idea they are often clueless and flat wrong in their assessment and judgement of the Israeli people, their culture, and mindset after decades of everyone surrounding them vowing (and trying) to drive them into the Mediterranean, after first randomly bombing them in their cafes and stores.
Secondly, what exactly is a “proportional response” to an act of war? I mean, here we have two groups that are part of newly elected governments who’ve engaged in a clear act of war on their border. Is it wiser to appease the “proportional response” crowd by, say, kidnapping three of their guys (tit, tat, tit, tat), or it is wiser to take harsher action in hopes of preventing it from occurring in the future?
One of the oldest traditional acts of war is an attack on a military flag vessel of a country, or one of its diplomatic outposts. Or, in this case, its border defenses. When Al Qaeda attacked two of our embassies killing hundreds and wounding thousands, we made what some would call a “proportional response” with a cruise missile attack on a camp in Afghanistan. When they later attacked the USS Cole killing 17 of our sailors, our response was … nothing at all.
How did that work out for us?
“Proportional response” is a strategy two battling parties can engage in when they both know the other will back down at a certain level of pain. Say, the old world US versus USSR. But when one side is not only relatively immune to pain but seeks martyrdom through efforts to kill you, “proportional response” does not apply. It’s downright illogical.
So what is a logical response? I don’t claim to be anywhere near an expert on the history, geography, or tactics likely to be used in south Lebanon or Gaza. Not that that has ever stopped any blogger from opining on anything. In this case, I’m looking at the larger view, one fairly accessible to anyone, and it has more than one level.
The fact is that much of southern Lebanon is a defacto Hezbollah controlled state, complete with their own schools. And over the past six years since they withdrew, the Israeli’s have watched Hezbollah build up military positions on the border. They did not act pre-emptively, they restrained themselves. For years they did nothing but watch, and hope that Lebanon’s real government might disarm Hezbollah and retake control of their border as even the UN has dictated (resolution 1559, I believe).
But the fact is that Lebanon’s duly elected government lacks one thing that any government, democracy or tyranny, must have to be successful: a monopoly on violence within their borders. No one should be able to fire dozens of rockets from within the borders of a country, except that country’s government. That has never been the case in Lebanon. And when you can’t or won’t control what goes on within your borders on that scale, you leave open the door for others to do so by military means.
But they may be getting the idea that they are somehow going to have to make it so: “After a cabinet meeting Thursday, the government said it had a right and duty to extend its control over all Lebanese territory. Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said the statement marked a step toward the government reasserting itself. Other government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, went further, calling it a first move in possibly sending the Lebanese army to the border, a U.N.-endorsed proposal that Hezbollah has rejected. The officials described the meeting as stormy and contentious but said both sides — Hezbollah and its government critics — were especially wary of public divisions at a time of crisis.”
At this point, their best bet may be to let Israel pound Hezbollah into a militarily negligible state, and then the Lebanese army can move in and for once control their very own borders. But I know I’m a Pollyanna for even typing that.
I have a feeling this is going to eventually escalate to the next level, despite anyone’s intent. When you see Israeli diplomats on TV speaking of Hamas and Hezbollah as the “bloody fingers” on the arms of Iran and Syria, you have to wonder if that means the it won’t be solely the Lebanese people who bear the brunt of the bombs on this one. They are not the real supporters of Hezbollah.
Syria and Iran are.
Israel can likely bomb the %$#@! out of Hezbollah, and much of south Lebanon. It’s not like they haven’t created a buffer zone there before. But what good did it do them? What good will it do this time? Rather than address the symptoms, will we see Israel go after the source this time? Currently, signs seem to be against it.
So is this to be merely yet another cycle of tit for tat violence in the long history of it in that region? It is very well possible. But I have to go with the Sandmonkey on this one: “Insanity seems like a viable option right now [...] The way I see it, I want some side to win. Any side. Whatever the outcome is, I want someone soundly defeated, to the degree that what’s happening now can not happen again. I want the rules of the game changed.”
I initially thought Israel did as well, and that they would be putting Syria under the gun very soon. When they withdrew their offensive from Gaza right after the attack in the north, it seemed logical to me that they were first going to decimate Hezbollah, and probably knock out their closest leg of support (Syria), and then with that object lesson available for all to see, turn their attention back to Gaza.
Today, I’m not so sure. Nor am I sure that merely re-pounding south Lebanon will work any better than it has in the past.
I think it’s instructive to look at this situation according to who is benefitting from it most at the moment. There are some clear losers; Hezbollah is taking a severe beating to their manpower and infrastructure; Hamas got some moral relief from the attack in the north, but no physical aid; Israel is taking it on the chin in the international community, as always, and there are valid questions about whether their current tactics are going to make things better or worse for them locally.
Meanwhile, the G-8 conference is taking place, and the primary meat on the planned menu had been a discussion of Iran’s intransigence on the issue of nuclear power. And on the very day of Iran’s deadline for a reply (a reply that never came), Hezbollah strikes. Suddenly, the prime meat on the plate at the G-8 isn’t Iran, it’s Israel.
The West also gets a taste of the asymmetric flavor of trouble Iran can cause, should anyone go after them directly. Since Israel is likely to be quicker on the trigger against Iran than we are, it’s a case of “the best defense is a good offense,” especially when it can be done by proxy. Consider this:
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had just disclosed publicly that he had worked out a prisoner swap with Israel and Hamas, but that “other parties” he would not name forced Hamas to sabotage the deal. It can be assumed that Syria and Iran are the other parties, the two countries having signed a military cooperation agreement last month that Syria’s defense minister described as establishing “a joint front against Israel.”
Iran’s trap for Israel – The Boston Globe
And this:
The Lebanese Tourism Ministry’s Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early July: in the first six months of the year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited Lebanon. No other Asian country came close (the Philippines ranked second, with a bit over 12,000). I don’t think that there’s enough disposable income in mullahland to cover the expenses of more than ten thousand people a month headed for the Beirut beaches. Do you think, as I do, that a goodly number of those “tourists” were up to no good?
Michael Ledeen: The Same War
Then mix in the case of the Israeli ship damaged last week by an Iranian-made Silkworm missile, fired with radar guidance (i.e., requiring a level of technical skill for which you might needed trained experienced operators).
Who are the ones coming out of this with a strategic advantage right now? It isn’t Hezbollah or Hamas, and it isn’t Israel. Nor am I saying that I’m in favor of an escalation that takes on Iran.
I’m just saying that when you look at the big picture, it sure seems pretty inevitable. Despite anyone’s intent or wishes.
Published 05:26PM, Sun, Jul 16 2006
Category: Middle East Iran
Previous: «« Six ««
Next: »» The Name Not On The Ballot »»
Peanut Gallery
The UN should just make the West Bank and Gaza a part of Israel, then come in in force and demand that Israel comply with all human rights standards for all the people there. Radical plan, eh?
Paul: “Proxy wars. Gotta love ‘em.”
My guess is that the people of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan might have something less than love for “proxy wars,” since more than a million civilians were killed during them in those three places.
One could also argue that proxy wars are [1] cowardice and/or [2] racist. As for [1], if you’ve got a problem with someone worthy of violent escalation, using third parties to fight your battles merely increases the death toll, and reveals you don’t have the balls to fight it yourself. And, [2] the concept that it is better for “those people” to die fighting our proxy wars rather than valuable citizens of your country … is racist.
Not that it hasn’t been going on nearly as long as warfare has.
In this case, I think it’s a bit different. Ask your average martyr-bound jihadist this question: would you rather join the jihad against the Americans in Iraq (i.e., no proxy, hit the Great Satan himself), in a war that looks like it’s past its tipping point, or would you rather be a part of the jihad that drives Israel into the sea?
I would argue they’d choose the latter. In many eyes, we are the proxy of Israel. Their most precious goal is Israel’s elimination, not ours.
And I would also argue that as long as these fights are done by proxy, all you’re doing is running out the clock and running up the death toll. It’s not a solution, it barely qualifies as stalling. At some point, there must be a reckoning.
Todd: “Radical plan, eh?”
Radical and scary. Because it relies on the competence of the UN, an item that I don’t think has been seen in a couple of decades.
But you’re right, there is talk to day of insertion of a UN approved international force along the Lebanese border. And, gee, here I was thinking things couldn’t get any worse…
In this case, I think it’s a bit different. Ask your average martyr-bound jihadist this question: would you rather join the jihad against the Americans in Iraq (i.e., no proxy, hit the Great Satan himself), in a war that looks like it’s past its tipping point, or would you rather be a part of the jihad that drives Israel into the sea?
True, but those guys don’t make the decisions. They’re just peons who’ve been manipulated by propaganda to do the bidding of more important people. Hezbollah may have its own aims, but those are usually subordinate to the aims of whoever’s paying the bills—Iran.
Iran doesn’t want to fight us head-on and we don’t want to fight Iran head-on. The leadership on both sides says stuff to rile-up the plebs, but neither really wants a war with the other. So what to do? Iran has been the big winner in the middle east since we removed their greatest foe and check on their power. We’ve essentially handed them the keys to the kingdom. Right now, their main concern is an intra-muslim one: Shi’a domination of Islam in the Middle East. They will achieve that in Iraq, thanks to us, but the rest of the Middle East is a question mark.
For leaders in the Arab world, Israel is the great go-to guy when you want to inflame passions, much like what we do with terrorism. If you want to score political points in the Middle East, talk trash about Israel. Power and influence, in this case, isn’t only military power, but who’s bothering Israel the most or who’s embarassing it the most. Hezbollah, being a Shi’a organization and proxy of Iran, is currently doing that and increasing the prestige of the Shi’a.
Of course, the Sunni are Iran’s biggest Muslim foes, but they’re currently engaged in an insurgency against the US in Iraq. So, Iran’s two biggest foes are currently tied up fighting each other in Iraq while it harasses our proxy and increases its prestige in the region. It looks like Iran is trying to set-up th eboard so that it (and by extension, Shia Islam) become the dominant force in the Middle East and its politics. So far, it’s been quite successful and we’ve kept obliging them. If they minimalize the Sunni, all they have to worry about is Wahabism and other related sects. The US is quite tangental to all this and Israel’s just a convenient boogeyman.
They’ve managed to eliminate Saddam Hussein, increase Shi’a influence in Iraq, distract the Sunni with an insurgency against the US, establish dominance in Mid-East politics and strike at Israel—all by making everyone else do all the work for them. Sun Tzu would be proud.
“Sun Tzu would be proud.”
No doubt. Iran’s President has played the “wild man” role, yet Iran has acted very shrewdly strategically. They push the limits, and no one pushes back. So they keep pushing, and do so indirectly. They’ve positioned themselves very very well, while we have handcuffed ourselves.
As long as everyone plays their game and only addresses the symptoms (the proxies), they’ll keep winning. They haven’t even really played their hand in Iraq, they’ve just positioned themselves to be ready when the time comes. More ready than the majority of folks can even conceive.
Escalation to take on Iran is a true Pandora’s box no one wants to open … including myself. But it’s clear that’s going to have to happen eventually, or, as you say, cede control of the Middle East to Iran … as well as their eventual ownership of nuclear weapons. The option of thwarting that will grow even more costly every day that passes. And therefore less likely to happen.
Yes, right now Iran is winning on multiple levels. And it’s likely to continue, as long as no one is willing to open that box…
Escalation to take on Iran is a true Pandora’s box no one wants to open … including myself. But it’s clear that’s going to have to happen eventually, or, as you say, cede control of the Middle East to Iran
I don’t know. It depends on what we can live with. Would you rather have a Saudi-dominated Middle East or an Iranian one? We’ve eliminated one of the bulwarks of Pan-Arabism, and Iran might be trying to exploit what might be a crumbling system to replace with their own model. It depends on how things go in Syria, which is why I think the Israelis won’t chance widening the strike there. A disruption of the Syrian government could deliver it into the hands of Islamists.
In the end, it comes down to a choice: Pan-Arabism, Shi’aism, or Wahabism and then back our choice to the hilt. We’re trying to build something resembling a “managed democracy” in Iraq and we have a democratic-type ally in Israel, but if Iraq fails, we’re going to have to make the choice above and live with it. I think what happens in Iraq will determine the course of Middle East politics for the forseeable future: secular democracy, secular despotism, or Islamic Republic.
You guys can quit talking substance now, the President said a four-letter word yesterday, so now all news other than that must be pushed to back pages- it’s a journalism rule or something. I think it’s called ‘The New Beavis and Butthead Journalism’ or something.
Paul: “It depends on what we can live with. Would you rather have a Saudi-dominated Middle East or an Iranian one?”
Neither, nor am I sure it’s an “or” situation. If it is decided we in the West “can live with” a nuclear Iran, frankly, that doesn’t really mean much.
Because if I’m Saudi Arabia, I can’t live with a nuclear Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. The Saudis will (or already have) start their own nuclear program. Egypt as well. Just as a nuclear Pakistan followed on the heels of a nuclear India.
The battle for domination will not end with one nuke, or with Western capitulation.
“A disruption of the Syrian government could deliver it into the hands of Islamists.”
As opposed to a democratic vote delivering it into the hands of Islamists?
Todd: “I think it’s called ‘The New Beavis and Butthead Journalism’ or something.”
Hehe. Hehe. He said “shit.”
Ezra Klein made a good comment on this: “This is your press corps. The President has a potty mouth is a more pressing story than the President believe sufficient pressure on the sovereign nation of Syria could be the key to ending an intensely volatile war in the Middle East. What a proud day for my profession.”
Proxy wars. Gotta love ‘em.
Back in the 80’s, the State Dept crowd had a joke: What’s the worst thing about the war between Iran and Iraq? – - It has to end someday.
Has anybody else noticed that Iran has been much more difficult to deal with since Saddam went away?
Fifteen years ago, I was highly sympathetic to the Palestinan cause. This week I heard myself say of the Israelis “Well, they tried to be nice.”
. . . Somebody really should get the Iranians and Syrians to stop this shit. Over six years, on several hundred issues, I’ve agreed with the President approximately four times. . . . and he’s taken a beating every time. What’s up with that?
I also think the Pres is right to do nothing while the Israelis firm up their position, before calling for a diplomatic solution. Reid’s pollyanna idea ( let Israel pound Hezbollah . . . then the Lebanese . . .control their very own borders ) appears to be the actual plan.
Will it work? Probably not.
But the best plan that probably won’t work is still better than the other plans that probably won’t work.
This does remind me of something I read in The Onion:
“Maybe we should stop thinking of this as a Mideast crisis and just think of it as Mideast culture.”
“Has anybody else noticed that Iran has been much more difficult to deal with since Saddam went away?”
This is a harsh and cold thing to say, but here’s the lesson bouncing in my head at the moment. In that particular region where multiple ethnicities, competing religious sects, and tribal cultures all intersect like the San Andreas fault … there’s going to be death, under cruel and random circumstances.
For a while, it was at the hands of Saddam. Now, it’s at the hands of others. It’s been going on about 2.5 decades in that trans Iraq-Iran region. Maybe it’s not the hands.
“But the best plan that probably won’t work is still better than the other plans that probably won’t work.”
I can’t remember … whose head stone was that on?
Is it the best plan? It’s potentially the quickest ending with the lowest short-term cost that we’re likely to see. Seems pretty clear by now Israel won’t accept any less. Best of the bad options?
Unfortunately for me, I have the combination of [1] being a student of history and [2] expecting to be alive to witness a few more decades of it. And I know we’ll be revisiting this. Indecisiveness in the face of disturbing trends and a pretty clear set of circumstances has dragged out war and cost a lot of lives in history. Hundreds of thousands in the Civil War. Who knows how many at Tora Bora.
And over two hundred in Lebanon and Israel so far.
I don’t know what the solution is. Wouldn’t matter if I did, either, these events are beyond the control of any of us. I just know that any “cease fire” doesn’t mean that we’re done yet.
The Onion, via Paul: “Maybe we should stop thinking of this as a Mideast crisis and just think of it as Mideast culture.”
P. J. O’Rourke, via Reid: “The Middle Eastern states aren’t nations; they’re quarrels with borders.”
I think he wrote that about twnety years ago.
whose head stone was that on?
Hoover.
Hilarious! People who were and still are completely opposed to the invasion of Iraq and refuse to acknowledge that there was a certain logical strategy behind it perfectly willing to accept that we have to go after Iran.
Even after our military has demonstrated that it is too small without a major conscription movement to handle a nation half that size.
I think Israelis would be fairly opposed to being considered a proxy. They see us as a threat to their security as well. They do not exist for us in the Middle East. We have interfered in their previous efforts at self-defense repeatedly – asking them to roll back borders, get out of the Sinai, sit at the table and shake hands with terrorist, etc. If anything, they see us as a big brother that won’t stay the hell out of their business.
Forget about Iran. They are going to do whatever they want. Their ascension is secured. Thanks to the bellyaching in the US by the left, our military activities in Iraq are curtailed enough that we have shown we lack the will to fight and occupy a nation long-term or successfully. We don’t have what it takes.
Iran need fear nothing from us. Whoever becomes president next – or perhaps two terms in the future will end up in a nuclear stand-off with Iran and will have to deal with one or more American cities being annihilated or nuclear blackmail at the least.
All because of the whiners here who couldn’t find it in themselves to simply cheer for our side instead of screaming about war crimes and other stupid crap. That complaining was the sound of our Empire collapsing.
We’re finished. Iran has a free ticket now, and they know it. So, please, let’s stop talking about doing something about them. We can’t. We’re helpless.
“If anything, they see us as a big brother that won’t stay the hell out of their business.”
They don’t seem to complain when we supply them with planes, helicopters, fuel, and bombs. There’s a tit-for-tat relationshp there. We give them what they need and they give us what we want. We could easily pop their mouth out of the US Government’s teat and back another proxy in the Middle East and they know it, so they accomplish objectives amenable to both of us.
All because of the whiners here who couldn’t find it in themselves to simply cheer for our side instead of screaming about war crimes and other stupid crap.
War crimes and other stupid crap? War crimes are pretty damned serious matey.
And I wasn’t clear that cheering was the real problem. Perhaps if I bought some big foam USA #1 fingers to wave around our leadership would magically figure out what in the hell it is doing?
“Perhaps if I bought some big foam USA #1 fingers to wave around our leadership would magically figure out what in the hell it is doing?”
No, I think this is the part where we clap real hard to show we believe.
Paul: “We could easily pop their mouth out of the US Government’s teat and back another proxy in the Middle East”
Pray tell, who might be your choice? There must be a country on your map of the Middle East that isn’t on mine. If, the Pollyanna said, we want allies who share as many of our values as possible (free speech, free press, religious freedom, equal right for women, etc.), who is Number Two on that list behind Israel?
“No, I think this is the part where we clap real hard to show we believe.”
Oh. Well, maybe that’s the problem. I think some people are clicking their heels together, not clapping real hard.
“War crimes are pretty damned serious matey.”
No, they aren’t. There is no such thing as a “war crime.” “War crime” is what the winning side calls the actions of the losing side.
The US nuked two cities – no war crime. The British and US bombed Dresden and other cities back to the stone age. No war crime.
The US intentionally irradiated their own soldiers to see what the effects on ground troops would be during a nuclear blast. No war crime. No accountability.
The Germans developed a V2 rocket and rained them down on London. The man most responsible is forgiven and put in charge of NASA’s rocket program.
The Japanese performed medical experiments on Chinese, American, and British POWs. The people responsible are forgiven/forgotten so that Japan can serve as a forward base against the Soviet.
War crimes are not “damned serious.” If anything, “war crimes” is nothing more than a silly slogan used to rationalize tormenting another power for doing exactly what your own would have done – or was doing – in the same situation.
I do not believe in war crimes. I believe that when one entity is at war with the other, their goals are mutually to destroy one another. To accomplish that, they may engage in any number of “war crimes” if they can think up a justification. If their backs are against the wall, they will do so with ferver.
Once war is on, there is no law. There is simply might vs. might and a race to be the one who has the other in a death grip to achieve surrender, or perhaps genocide.
I do not believe in “War Crimes.” I think anyone expecting a nation which is fighting another to obey some obscure rules at the risk of its own people is expecting more than humans have to give. Of course we torture people. Of course they blow up civilians. Of course, of course. To think otherwise is to be delusional.
“No, I think this is the part where we clap real hard to show we believe.�
No, this is the part where you do not create a political environment wherein our own government finds itself in a situation where choice A will result in being thrown out of office and choice B will result in the eventual destruction of our people.
That’s where we are now. We did not win WWII by allowing our media to give voice to the bellyachers. We eventually had to give up in Vietnam because of them, however.
If we are going to fight a war for real, freedom of speech must be tossed out the window, or we, as a democracy, face the very real and likely possibility that our own stupidity and irrational, passionate reactions to the bloodshed will inspire our enemies to further their cause and postpone surrender that much further.
At any rate, it is all a foregone conclusion now. Thanks to the probability of nuclear blackmail, the American Republic is doomed, and a police state is just over the horizon. Only a police state can survive in a world with nuclear terror.
My view is simple: My top priority is to survive and see my children survive and their children survive. I believe that we can only achieve that by attacking and utterly destroying our enemies and demonstrating clearly that attacking or threatening us in any way will be dealt with mercilessly. It is the language our enemies speak. The language of diplomacy, to them, is the noise we make when we are scared.
Well, I’m glad we all see where we’re coming from.
I’ve read your article on your site, and though I don’t disagree with your points in it about oil … here, well, you know how contrarian types can be.
24FC: “We did not win WWII by allowing our media to give voice to the bellyachers.”
Heard of Sen. Robert A. Taft? Imagine if 12 days after Sept. 11, a US Senator had said “I see no use in sending boys of nineteen or twenty to war.” Would he have been labelled unpatriotic or treasonous, and run out of town on a rail? But that’s what Taft said 12 days after Pearl Harbor. Stayed in office more than a decade after that, and became Senate Majority Leader.
Go figure.
“If we are going to fight a war for real, freedom of speech must be tossed out the window”
This could fall under the category of something I mentioned right after Sept. 11 that we needed to watch out for … that in fighting this war, we did not become the very thing we hate.
“At any rate, it is all a foregone conclusion now. Thanks to the probability of nuclear blackmail, the American Republic is doomed, and a police state is just over the horizon.”
That’s one possible future, I suppose.
But it assumes that the first viable and transportable nukes to come out of the Middle East will be used here in the continental US. I think you’re skipping a few targets, motivations, as well as some cause and effect.
For this possible future, let’s stipulate that the UN, Europe, and US will be unwilling or unable to stifle Iranian nuclear development, and, say, April of 2009, they successfully test a nuke and say they have three more like it. Heck, let’s throw in an infallible 1000 mile delivery system, plus shadowy asymmetric delivery methods.
The bluster all along has been they’ll nuke Israel, and that may be too tempting to resist. But it would ensure the glassification of much of Iran, via Israeli nuclear retaliation. Still, it may be too hard to resist.
However … if one seeks dominant power within Islam and the Middle East (i.e., the Shia-Sunni schism, in which many think the others are infidels little better than us), and greater world wide power and influence, well, right across the narrow Persian Gulf is the most dominant economic power in the Gulf, a Sunni monarchy, with bare naked oil fields and processing facilities that one well placed nuke could invalidate for decades. Combined with a cross border attack to capture the southern oil fields in Iraq (with that nuke or two in reserve), and you’ve got the makings of the sole remaining oil superpower. Backed by nukes.
And you better believe that countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are either ramping up or already running their own clandestine nuclear programs. Iran wants to dominate them as well, and they know it. To me, this is the true danger of Iran getting nukes. Two or three other nations will quickly follow them, feeling they have no choice.
If nukes from the Middle East get out of control, I believe it is most likely that’s where they will be used … in the Middle East.
But I suppose Iran could bypass Israel, and the big oil target across the Gulf, and pass one of their first nukes on to some group that got one into the continental US.
If that happened, and it went off, you’d never have a problem with Iranian nukes again. Because Iran would cease to exist.
I know applying logic and rationality is maybe not the best way to predict what the leadership of Iran will do. But Option One (Israel) and Option Three (US) are sure to bite back in an equivalent manner. By comparison, Option Two is a no-pain freebie.
I have no idea what will end up happening. In the shorter narrower view, there’s no telling who will feel emboldened by any perceived Israeli failure in taking on Hezbollah (which is the only perception they’ve fostered thus far). And Hezbollah has already made it clear that when they are done with Israel (or vice versa), they have some scores they intend to settle within Lebanon.
Comparisons to the time before WWI seem pretty apt these days. One as yet unconceived new spark could send it all to a new level.
If, the Pollyanna said, we want allies who share as many of our values as possible (free speech, free press, religious freedom, equal right for women, etc.), who is Number Two on that list behind Israel?
I’d rather have allies that present us with opportunities, rather than limit our freedom of movement. If we’re talking about partners who give us flexibility in policy and a strategic edge, then it’s obvious: Iraq.
If we were to divert our resources away from Israel and give our full attention, combined with actual, competant policy, to Iraq, we’d solve quite a few of our current policy problems. For one, we’d no longer be in thrall of a country whose only real value to us is to keep radical elements in that part of the world off-balance and keep things in a continual state of tension. If we were serious about peace and stability, we wouldn’t place all our support with Israel.
Second, we’d build an effective bullwark against Iran. Third, we’d present the Arabs with a viable Third Way between Islamism and Nationalism. Fourth, we’d have a wedge between Iran and Syria. If we had actually supported Lebanon with actual weaponry and money, rather than food, we could’ve built a relationship with an effective ally over there. Not only could we have used them to expel and disarm Hezbullah, but combined with Iraq, we would’ve been able to apply significant pressure on Syria. We would’ve bisected the Syrian-Iranian alliance and isolated them from the rest of the Arab world.
When you consider that we have friendly relations with Jordan and Egypt (two of the remaining Nationalist countries), it’s easy to see how we could’ve stood a good chance of actually changing the Mideast for the better.
Finally, we’d prove to the Arab world that we’re serious about helping them reform and prosper instead of just paying lip service and backing Israel no matter what. Instead, we completely cocked everything up and decided to wreck their countries, destablize their populations, and destroy their infrastructures, both directly and via our proxy.
Comparisons to the time before WWI seem pretty apt these days. One as yet unconceived new spark could send it all to a new level.
Last I checked, war in the Mideast isn’t exactly a novel thing and this is, like, the fourth or fifth time Israel’s attacked Lebanon. They tend to fight over there quite a bit.
This is nothing at all like the situation prior to WWI, except that there exists tiny groups of people in each country who really, really think a grand war between everyone would be a capital idea.
What we are facing is this TV report from the future:
Today, Iran announced that it has placed 20 nuclear weapons around the United States in secret locations, and that it has the ability to detonate any of them at any time. Iran has made the following demands, and to show they are serious, they have detonated a 50 kt weapon and destroyed San Fransisco. They claim they have 19 weapons left, and that they will detonate them one at a time around the US, until their demands are met. They also say they will detonate any nuke in any city that shows a sign of a panic or exodus. As you know, three days ago, Iran detonated one of the five weapons they have hidden in Israel. No nation has dared stand up to them since they demonstrated this capability.The UN has passed a resolution declaring Israel decolonized and demanding that all Jews leave by any means necessary at once.
I sit here all agape that all we have done is invade Iraq and put Saddam on trial. I would have thought with this on the immediate horizon we would have
* closed our borders up tight and threatened Mexico if they didn’t assist.
* stopped allowing people to travel to and from the middle east
* asked businesses to provide more freedom in working from home to cut down on gas consumption
* Asked consumers to run errands on their commutes or take public transport to reduce gas consumption
* outlawed gas guzzling vehicles without special permits
* raised mileage standards on vehicles
* tightened security at our ports paid for with tarriffs
* bombed Iran’s nuclear plant
And other such direct actions intended to lower our chances of being economically or militarily vulnerable to those nations.
Instead, we are acting as if this is all more of the same old same old diplomatic exchange between nations with a few terrorists that need to be rounded up by James Bond.
I’m afraid it isn’t that at all. I’m very afraid of that. And I see us doing nothing about it – leaving the door wide open for coyotes to drive nukes all over our country from Mexico.
This is the scenario that scares me.
Recent Comments
- Reid (Republican Postmortem)
- elburro (Republican Postmortem)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Reid (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
What’s happening right now is just a proxy war between our proxy (Israel) and Iran’s proxy (Hezbollah).
I can almost see it from the rest of the Middle East’s POV. Israel is essentially our Cuba in the Middle East. Without our funding and equipment, they’d almost be on equal footing with their neighbors. So if Hezbollah is funded by Iran, so what? The Iranians fund their guys to harass our guys and vice versa. Hezbollah has allegedly used an Iranian-made missle to hit a Isaraeli ship. Great. The Israelis are flying American-made F-16’s to bomb and kill the Lebanese.
The why I see it, fair is fair. The Israelis enjoy a massive military advantage over their enemies due to American funding and equipment. I don’t think we should be surprised that their enemies are using their contacts to find any advantage they can to fight back.
Proxy wars. Gotta love ‘em.