-
Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Ray Manzarek, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Thoughts on The Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma
May 20, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Alan O’Day, R.I.P.
May 20, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Elijah Harper, R.I.P.
May 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Today, I have a feature article on the main site which rejects the notion advanced by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff amongst others that Iran is a rational actor.
Normally, I would not draw attention to the comments left. However, this one caught my eye. It was written by Col. David Lapan. Assuming this is the Colonel Lapan in question, he is a Pentagon spokesman who takes issue with my article. He writes:
It is not the case that General Dempsey believes Iran is a “rational actor” based on “his opinion on the notion that Iran has not yet decided whether it will develop nuclear weapons.”
Colonel Lapan then provides a link to an exchange which took place between General Dempsey and New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte when Dempsey testified before the Senate Budget Committee on February 28, 2012. I will get to that exchange shortly.
But first let’s examine what General Dempsey told Fareed Zakaria in the first place back on February 19th:
Zakaria: When you observe Iranian behavior does it strike you as highly irrational? Does it strike you as sort of unpredictable? Or do they seem to follow their national interest in a fairly calculating way?
General Dempsey: That is a great question and I’ll tell you I’ve been confronting that question since I commanded Central Command in 2008. And we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor and is for that reason I think that we think the current path we’re on is the most prudent path at this point.
So if General Dempsey’s stated belief that Iran has not made a decision as to whether or not to weaponize its nuclear program is a factor in concluding that Iran is a rational actor then what are his criteria for making that assessment? General Dempsey’s reply to Senator Ayotte raises more questions than it does answers:
Look I agree that Iran is a regime that is dangerously misguided. Look at its behavior. It protects itself; it loathes its neighbors;it interferes with its neighbors; threatens its neighbors and it disregards its own citizens. So none of that is acceptable to us. So to our way of thinking and our way of being rational. But it does fit their pattern of thinking in a 30-year history of conduct. So my view of this is that we can’t afford to underestimate our potential adversaries by writing them off as irrational. That’s kind of the juxtaposition of the phrase and I personally don’t mistake Iran’s rhetoric for a lack of reason.
With all due respect to General Dempsey, this response strikes me as disingenuous. First, Iran’s behavior fitting certain pattern might make it predictable, it certainly doesn’t make it rational. Secondly, Israel certainly isn’t underestimating Iran and it certainly isn’t writing them off. Why else would Israel give serious consideration to the possibility of a military strike against Iran? Because the Israeli government believes that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon it would use it against its people. If anyone is underestimating Iran it is the Obama Administration. General Dempsey told Zakaria point blank that the Obama Administration does not believe Iran presents an existential threat to Israel. So long as this daylight between the United States and Israel exists, the Iranian matter will never be resolved in a satisfactory manner.
General Dempsey later told Senator Ayotte, “As we seek to influence their behavior we have to understand their way of thinking.” But I am not convinced General Dempsey (much less the rest of the Obama Administration) does understand Iran’s way of thinking at all. I fear that General Dempsey is simply rationalizing Iran’s irrationality.
Case in point. In December 2003, a major earthquake hit the city of Bam in southeastern Iran which resulted in the deaths of over 25,000 people. Israel immediately offered aid to the victims of the earthquake only to have Iran refuse the assistance. Let us remember that this took place when a supposedly moderate regime led by Mohammed Khatami was in power. How many lives might have been saved had Iran accepted Israel’s generosity? We will never know. What we do know is that the Iranian regime would rather have its own people die than be helped by the Jewish people Israel. If this an act of a rational actor then what does it take to make a nation an irrational actor? If Iran has that little regard for its own people then I shudder at the thought of what they are prepared to do to Israel.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/13/general-dempsey-rationalizes-i
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- What’s in a Name?
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
C Bowen | 3.13.12 @ 6:09PM
Speaking of irrational, remember those folks who favored a trillion dollar debt financed invasion of a secular nation to make it safe for Islam, all because the Iranian agent Chalabi and his buddy Curveball said Saddam had violated UN resolutions?
Why are those irrational people still commenting on foreign policy?
Jack in Wi.| 3.13.12 @ 6:46PM
The Iranians seem quite rational to me. They haven't invaded anyone in 300 years. They have renounced Nulear weapons and their use as against God's Law. They are in full compliance with their treaties f0r peaceful nuclear development. They have been under ispection for many years. Almost all of their defense stragey is defensive. All our combined intelligence agencies say Iran is not developing nuclear weapons at this time. Even if they had a couple what would they do with them? They are surrounded by nuclear powers who would blow them to kingdom come. Therefore they figured why the hell waste our money on developing them. The irrational people here are the Israeli's who have used nuclear blackmail to threaten the world with the Samson Option. The other irrational power is the USA which keeps wasting it's blood and money supporting Israel. Blessed are the peacemakers. Shalom.
Jack in Wi.| 3.13.12 @ 7:16PM
Bowen: Iran does not have to do anything but sit back and watch. After all we took out Saddam Hussain, our old ally, and their mortal enemy for them. Then we installed the Shia friends of Iran as the governing class in Iraq. Why should they do anything? They have nothing to gain with war. Maybe that is why these fine civlilized people have not invaded anyone for 300 years.
Drek| 3.13.12 @ 6:10PM
He's been given his orders, told what to say, and he obeyed.
Not a banner moment for America's military.
DRed| 3.13.12 @ 8:33PM
Yes, refusing Israeli aid is completely rational for an oppressive, unrepresentative regime that gains a significant amount of it's domestic legitimacy through its opposition to the country offering that aid. It's entirely consistent with the main goal of the Iranian regime, which is staying in power. Nuking Israel would undermine that effort pretty significantly, as they fully understand that they'd be destroyed afterwards.
Bob Grant | 3.13.12 @ 9:34PM
There is nothing rational about Islam.
Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 9:55PM
The only irrational people here are Tel Aviv Aaron and his Neoconmen buddies.
Mike| 3.13.12 @ 10:55PM
I wish communist wackjobs like you go back to you came from. If you hate the United States so much, why don't you leave. And stop using the name of an honorable man you obviously despise.
Sean| 3.13.12 @ 11:23PM
Communist? Do you not know that the founders of neoconservatism were communist Troskyites? Did you not know who the biggest communists in the USA were? Take a guess what ethnic group in the USA made up the majority of communist backers.
Mike| 3.14.12 @ 1:47AM
By the way, Neoconservative is one of the most useless words, because different people use it to mean different things.
The real meaning is just people who are now conservative, who used to be something else.
An example of this would be Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative, because he started out as something else.
The two most common other definitions are ones that a lot of people (you, I suspect) confuse, deliberately, or through a lack of brainpower.
One definition is conservatives of an allegedly active foreign policy.
The other definition some people use is basically Jewish. I suspect that you, like some people, are combining definition #2 and #3.
If you don't like Jews, why don't you just come out and say it? I won't respect you for your opinion, but it's a lot less annoying than the ad hominem innuendos that people like you and Zombie spew.
Why exactly are you so threatened by Jews?
Sean| 3.14.12 @ 2:16AM
Nice attempt to try to dodge. You called Zombie Reagan a communist, when he is calling people who come from a communist tradition(neocons) irrational.
Mike| 3.14.12 @ 1:34AM
Sean - wow - you just outed yourself. Trotskyite? Who are the people who worry/hate Trotskyite?
Only one group in the world that I know of - Stalinists.
Maybe you don't realize it Sean, but your a commie. Stalinist vintage.
Time to move to Moscow and get out of our country.
Sean| 3.14.12 @ 2:21AM
All Americans should hate Troskyites and it should be pretty clear that you don't have to be a supporter of Stalin to do so. I find it funny an ally of communists like yourself has the gall to tell someone from a staunchly anti-communist family to get out of the USA.
Col Dave Lapan| 3.14.12 @ 1:59PM
Mr Goldstein: I appreciate you noticing my comment, and while I don't want to engage in tit-for-tat, I do have to correct the record on one point -- the issue of existential threat. While you, and others, are free of course to disagree with Gen Dempsey’s views on this matter, no one should misread or misrepresent those views. Gen Dempsey has said that we (the US) haven't determined that Iran poses an existential threat to the US, but Israel has and we understand their position.