As the conflict between Israel and, well, almost all of its neighbors continues to escalate, I cannot help but wonder if Israel is not uniquely positioned to strike at Iran's nuclear capabilities again. It's not a newsflash the Hizbollah is controlled from Tehran (albeit through Syria). There appears to be an opening here for Israel to solve a lot of problems for everybody.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I was thinking the same thing as all this began to unfold! If Israel gets even an iota of intel that says that those captured soldiers are in Iran, they will certainly attack Iran. Hezbollah and Lebanon made a big mistake taking those soldiers hostage I think. All these jihadist governments think that they can start some grand anti Semitic coalition, but their allegiances are so thinly aligned and corruptible that they'll never make it happen, even with their strong shared hatred for Jews. They’ll just get their shit wrecked and continue to fan the flames internally.
It would also deeply humiliate and de-legitimize Ahmadinejad in the region. If Israel struck and Iran had nothing to do in return (because they know Israel would crush them in a conflict), it would be a major shift in the region.
I would not be surprised if we were headed for this result.
if the problem we're looking to "solve" is that the middle east isn't chaotic enough already, then yes, israel attacking iran would be a great problem-solver.
our foes in the middle-east - on an individual level, if not on a nation-state level - have shown great willingness to use violence to meet their nihilistic ends. a war between israel and iran would surely stoke those flames even higher, which doesn't seem like the best of ideas at this juncture.
terrorism takes war out of the hands of nation states and puts it in the hands of individuals and shadowy organizations. to think that state-on-state violence will somehow bring this to an end seems short-sighted.
terrorism can only be combated on two fronts: by attacking that small percentage of the population to go radical, and by removing the conditions that cause those people to exist in the first place. attacking iran doesn't strike me as really accomplishing either.
Eric -
There won't be a war between Iran and Israel because Iran knows damned well that Israel would absolutely slaughter them in a conventional war.
The problem to solve is a tough talking Ahmadinjad who is making a bid to be the dominant power in the region through nuclear threats. If Israel took out Iran's nuclear program and Iran was left powerless to respond (they wouldn't use their regular military because it wouldn't last a week against Israel), Amhadinejad would lose a ton of prestige in the region and be revealed as a paper tiger.
As for the "root causes" argument: wouldn't disabling and humiliating the most notorious state sponsor of terrorism deal a blow to terrorists?
Realistically, the only way to combat "root causes" is to wipe Israel off the map. Does that strategy make sense? Only the most naive can possibly believe that the "two state" solution is something that will ever happen.
"wouldn't disabling and humiliating the most notorious state sponsor of terrorism deal a blow to terrorists?"
sorta like in iraq?
israel's existence isn't exactly the root cause i was referring to. i'm sure it goes without saying that most people who commit desparate acts do so out of desparation. you or i would never dream of killing ourselves for a cause; we've got it too good.
the global economy has taken countries rich in resources and made them rich in money. unfortunately, those benefits don't generally trickle down to the people of those countries because of corrupt regimes. regimes, i would add, that we are happy to sponsor as long as they're friendly to us.
people see this, and it understandably makes them suspicious of our motivations. we've seen the results of this when we've tried to play the liberator.
any aggression on their part of either the US or israel, no matter how justified or well-intentioned (and i have a hard time associating notions of "justice" or "good intentions" with our current administration), will simply exacerbate this situation. so we need to pick our battles carefully. i am among the many who believe that iraq was an extremely poor choice, one that has now set us back significantly in that region.
i guess the point of all this babbling is just to say that the brute force approach, while it has it's appeal, rarely leads to a completely satisfying conclusion for anyone. it's gotten many people killed in irag and afghanistan, and has helped to create monsters like Ahmadinjad.
Eric,
I'm not sure Ahmadinjad becoming a monster was any of this administrations doing. I'm pretty sure he'd be the asshole he is even if we hadn't gone into Iraq.
I have my issues with this administration too, but I don't see how Dave is wrong with his assessment of the root cause of the ME problems. It is Israel, Israel, and Israel, or rather their very existence as a Jewish state and our support of them. Jews are the one peoples they hate worse than Americans. There is only one jihadist solution acceptable to the worst of them and that is eradication from the map and they've stated so on numerous occasions.
Not this administration or any other that will follow no matter what party is in the majority will pull our support for Israel. With that reality in mind, I have no issue with Israelis taking the lead in defense of their own country. I think what Dave and I agree on here is the fact that for once, our direct involvement should not be required since Israel has their own extremely capable armed forces. Yes, there will be instability, but it might as well happen.
The mess in Iraq has proved on thing: that these vicarious economic, religious, tribal, and social balances that exist in despotic countries like Iran, Syria, and elsewhere where some forms of modernism exist against a back drop of ruling class stone age religious zealots is not well understood by us. I was certainly one of those who thought that the Shia would have been more welcoming to our ouster of Saddam, but we underestimated the influence of their zealots. They didn’t want Saddam and are glad he’s gone, but they don’t want their women voting either.
In the bigger cities of Iran, a relatively thriving modern state is emerging that is careful not to go too far to upset the supreme council. I’d say a majority of Iranians are more than likely moderate people, but are they willing to fight for more liberties, or are they happy with the status quo? I don’t know. There is a civil war brewing there on some level, but whether it becomes an armed struggled, or placative passive reforms offered by the ruling class mullahs is anybody’s guess and one that we shouldn’t bet on either way. That’s what Iraq has taught me.
If Israel decides to attack Iran, I think the lack of response by Ahmadinjad will point out in a significant way to the Iranian people that their loud mouth emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. What happens then? I don’t know, but at least we, the U.S., won’t be the one’s blamed for tearing the band aid off.
All of this sounds good in theory, but in the real world, what exactly is Israel going to do to destroy Iran's nuclear program?
Most intelligence indicates Iran has moved the program underground, making it almost impossible to take out with conventional, or even tactical nuclear strikes.
I agree that Ahmadinjad would look foolish if he doesn’t respond to an attack by Israel, which would be great in the short term. But in the long run I have my doubts it would pay off. Many previously moderate Iranians could become radicalized, mostly out of a deeply-held nationalism (gee, does this sound like any other Middle Eastern country the U.S. attacked recently?) And whoever replaces Ahmadinjad could be much worse, to boot.
I also believe it's naive to think the U.S. won't be blamed for “tearing the band aid off.” The radical Arab world will blame us for conspiring with the Jews to gin up a conflict to take out Iran. The mullahs will say, “It’s all part of their grand plan to destroy Islam. First the U.S. attacked Iraq, then Israel attacked Iran.” Lots of people will believe that, unfortunately.
i'm not saying that Ahmadinjad, left to his own devices, would have been a benevolent lamb. but after the US has invaded two ME countries in 5 years, ask yourself how peaceful you'd be feeling right now if you were the leader of a ME country. is he engaging in some serious posturing right now? undoubtedly. most leaders in his position would, too. why do we as americans continually expect the rest of the world to bend over for us?
israel's right to exist has to be accepted, and anyone who refuses to do so is refusing to take part in productive dialouge. i suspect i won't get too much argument on that point. but if we simply leave it at that, and refuse to acknowledge or deal with the fact that israel currently *isn't* accepted, to varying degrees, by millions of people, we do so at our own peril.
the question is, how do we get from point A (utter chaos) to point B (a ME where israel and her neighbors can coexist)? in the minds of many people, the answer would appear to be, "wipe out or otherwise subjugate israel's neighbors". which is an understandable position when a small portion of the population of said neighbors are engaging in indefensible acts of terror. i just don't think it's a viable strategy.
it bums me out that it seems so hard for americans to think of ME countries as countries. for example, imagine for a moment that you really, really disliked the president of the US (a stretch, i know, but work with me). and then further imagine that china came over here, guns blazing, to effect a little "regime change". how psyched would you be? "not very" is the answer. and yet, we expect dancing in the streets when we go around the world trying to deliver democracy through bombs. i think the US could use a little more democracy right now, but i don't expect it to come from anywhere other than right here at home.
"...how do we get from point A (utter chaos) to point B (a ME where israel and her neighbors can coexist)? "
It may be the most pessimistic thing I’ll ever utter, but if we recognize Israel's right to exist, I’m not sure there is a way to convince their neighbors that peaceful coexistence is in their better interest vs. trying to annihilate them. In my lifetime, I’ve seen not one REAL overture or indication of acceptance of this. Because of this, I see no other solution than what they are doing. It may seem like a hockey goalie taking rapid fire practice shots from his teammates, but the hatred runs too deep.
I though Clinton did a brilliant job with his effort during his admin with this situation and I actually had hope there for a month or so, but in the end it only proved to me that Israel is the only country willing to make a legitimate effort for peace, and it spoke volumes about the coalition of hate.
Re: “…it bums me out that it seems so hard for Americans to think of ME countries as countries.”
The analogy here is too simple for use in the ME case. No, I wouldn’t feel good about China invading the U.S. to inspire regime change because Bush and his gang of doofus’s wants to impede a women’s right to have an abortion, but I’d certainly feel different about China invading if Bush's sons were marching political prisoners into wood chippers, or bombing the Mormon’s in Utah with saran gas.
We American’s complain about the erosion of rights or liberties, with ZERO perspective of exactly how bad things are for women in the ME for example, or how deeply rooted the hate is between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Jew, etc… It’s not in our DNA like it is with them. Despite the delusional nature of hyper-Christians in this country, it simply pales in comparison to the ME on the grand zealotry meter. You can’t use the comparison between the two.
In the end it may sound like playground political rhetoric, but I think it’s Israel’s neighbors who lack the understanding of national sovereignty.
"...Israel is the only country willing to make a legitimate effort for peace..."
one note: if you're interested in a different perspective on the israel/arab conflict, i would highly recommend a book called "the iron wall":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393321126/sr=1-1/qid=1153157227/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6087314-3067820?ie=UTF8&s=books
I will get this book. Appreciate the tip.
My take... Israel laid out unprecedented concessions during the Clinton accords and Fattah/Arafat knew that this was a major reach out for peace and no better deal would ever be offered. Fattah knew they'd be viewed as selling out the cause if they took it and a huge schism would emerge amongst the ranks of the Islamists region wide. So, Arafat passed and, as I said before, showed true Islamic colors and his own weakness as a leader. What’s a movement without anything to fight about, right?
Israel gave back the Gaza strip without concessions; you’d expect things to calm just a little. Wrong. On the whole, there is no Palestinian majority/minority who wish to concede Israel’s existence, the hate is taught from birth. Using the same notion, we’d have Native Americans running around shooting rockets into the city of Flagstaff AZ.
It’s a bad deal all around and with Islamic orthodoxy thrown into the mix I just don’t see much every improving any time soon.
coincidentally, i was listening to fresh air yesterday on NPR, and the guest was a writer for the New York Times who covers the Middle East extensively. i found much of what he said to be pretty interesting. towards your point, he mentioned that many palestinians don't know whether they're more concerned with independence, or fighting israel. clearly, many people in the region are not prepared to accept israel, and until they are, things are not likely to improve.
one of the more interesting parts of the discussion involved the trade-off between israel's need to defend herself, and the fact that aggression on israel's part (whether justified or not) generally leads to increased resentment and hostility. they mentioned that hezbollah basiclly was formed in the wake of israel's invasion of lebanon in '82, and how many new hezbollah's may be forming right now?
one of the central themes of that book i recommended (and it's been a few years since i've read it, so i hope i don't butcher this too badly) is that israel has always been consumed with the notion of negotiating from a position of strength, rather than appearing to make concessions due to weakness. history clearly shows us that israel has been the dominant force in that region since the late 40's, at least militarily. the book seeks to answer the question of whether they've used that strength to effectively seek peace.
Post a Comment