-
Open letter to Anré Dárel Washington
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
My AmSpec colleague Aaron Goldstein recently penned a note chastising General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his assertion that the Iranian regime is basically rational.
My take is between Goldstein’s and Dempsey’s.
I don’t quibble with Aaron’s suggestion that it is irrational to let many of your nation’s citizens die rather than take aid from a country you consider an enemy.
But whether or not to take aid is not the big question on the table. That question for Iran is, obviously, whether to proceed to the final stages of development of a nuclear weapon.
Before proceeding to discuss whether Iran is behaving rationally, we need to agree on a definition of rationality. Some may argue that rationality must mean taking a path which, among other things, minimizes one’s chances of death. I, however, take the position (similar to Dempsey’s) that we must view their rationality within the framework of their beliefs and values.
To be clear, this is in no way intended to equate rationality with intelligence or wisdom. Rather than given what they believe and what they want, a certain path — which would not be rational for countries with different fundamental premises — is reasonably considered “rational.” In short, Iran can be rational while risking death and destruction, and while pursuing truly evil ends.
Again, if one disagrees with this definition of rational, then one will disagree with my conclusion that Iran is mostly rational.
So, what does Iran (meaning the ruling ayatollahs) believe and what does Iran want?
As an American, not privy to their conversations, I can only guess, but guess I shall:
They probably believe that Israel should be destroyed, and they want to be the ones to do so regardless of cost. They certainly believe that having a nuclear weapon would give them a new level of power and prestige in the Middle East, allow the them push around their Arab neighbors (separate from the Israel issue), and perhaps make them the regional hegemon. These two beliefs are obviously not mutually exclusive; instead they are mutually reinforcing.
Whether they believe one or the other or both — and the odds of them believing neither is vanishingly small — Iran has a strong, perhaps paramount, interest in acquiring a nuclear weapon (or more precisely several nuclear weapons.)
That’s one side of the coin. The other side is the risk they perceive from going down that path.
They likely see themselves facing three potential adversaries: The United States, Europe (or perhaps a combination, such as through NATO), and Israel.
So far, Barack Obama has offered nothing but apologies to the Muslim world for American power and American behavior over the last two or three decades. His Middle East rhetorical group hugs demonstrate a weakness that no president since Jimmy Carter, and perhaps not even Carter, has shown. Obama’s fecklessness and weakness are emboldening Iran. Thus, it is totally rational for them to assume that, at least until Obama leaves office, the US is not a credible threat no matter what path the Iranian nuclear program takes.
The analysis is basically the same for Europe which, although avoiding group hugs, returns like Charlie Brown to Iran’s football-holding Lucy for multi-party talks which serve only to give Iran more time to enrich uranium and move their nuclear facilities to hardened bunkers deep underground, near population centers. The ayatollahs must be wondering how stupid a group of diplomats can be, never learning from history, and from their own recent history at that. Of course, they see they western world falling for exactly the same maneuvers by North Korea, so they aren’t surprised by the west’s never-ending gullibility. Again, it is totally rational for Iran to ignore Europe as a threat regardless of their nuclear program’s progress.
And that leaves Israel. Indeed it truly leaves Israel alone, as they have never had a president less interested in supporting our only true ally in that part of the world than is Barack Hussein Obama.
Iran’s leaders must calculate the odds that (1) Israel will strike, (2) that Israel has the capacity to destroy or nearly destroy deeply buried facilities, and (3) that they will have, or not have, actually completed a deliverable nuclear weapon before Israel attacks — the odds of such completion increasing with Barack Obama’s reportedly leaning on Israel to take no action before the US’s November election. Furthermore, Iran must calculate the chances that their unleashing Hezbollah (from Lebanon) and perhaps Hamas (from the Gaza Strip) to attack Israel, primarily with rockets, will cause Israel to focus on defending its home territory rather than further attacking Iran.
This is where Iran is likely to miscalculate, but it also raises the question of “Do the ayatollahs actually care?”
I have no doubt that the leaders of Iran, whether Khameni or Ahmadinejad or any of the many other radical Islamists whose names Americans don’t know, would gladly die if their names would go down in history as the people who destroyed Israel, or at least killed large numbers of Jews.
Putting it all together in something like a mathematical equation:
The Islamofascists ruling Iran have both strategic and other reasons for wanting a nuclear weapon. The only threat they are concerned with is Israel, which is being publicly restrained by the US. And they don’t care if they are “martyred” in the cause of destroying “the Zionist entity.”
Given that paradigm, it is entirely rational that Iran will not be deterred from marching straight ahead toward a nuclear weapon, while leading the US and Europe along in faux diplomacy designed to buy time so that they may have, or nearly have, a completed weapon by the time Israel feels it must act even if without help from its one-time ally, the United States.
Given the Iranian leadership’s likely view of the world, everything they’re doing is rational — while also being nearly suicidal and motivated by pure evil.
Zombie Reagan| 3.15.12 @ 10:13AM
So an entire country is going to commit national suicide by bombing Israel. When was the last time that happened? And don't say, WWII, because we are talking about every last man and woman Iranian. Also, the idea of martyrdom is not exclusively Islamic. Catholics believe if they die martyrs for their faith they become saints in heaven. Why do you think St. Rick Santorum is so eager to invade Iran?
Ross Kaminsky | 3.15.12 @ 10:17AM
I don't think Israel will target civilian populations, but I also don't think the Ayatollahs care. They have a much more aggressive and radical view than much or most of their population. And it's not in the Israeli mindset to attack civilians, for both religious and strategic reasons.
Conservative Bob| 3.15.12 @ 11:02AM
The 'entire country' doesn't have a say, only the Ayatollahs.
There is a significant difference in the definition of martyr in the Catholic/Christian faith and Islam. To Christians martyrs or those that suffer persecution and death for their beliefs, think of St. Steven for example who was stoned to death as an example. Islam calls martyrs those who die in battle killing infidels or spreading the faith by the sword. I know it is a subtle difference, one which your moral equivalence may not allow you to discern.
Zombie Reagan| 3.15.12 @ 11:38AM
Wrong. There is no difference. Both are dying for their faith and believe they go to heaven if they do so. Nice try though.
Ryan| 3.15.12 @ 12:16PM
What Christian martyr died with a sword in hand?
Richard| 3.15.12 @ 2:14PM
Ulrich Zwingli?
Conservative Bob| 3.15.12 @ 1:17PM
I suspected the reference might be beyond your comprehension, sorry.
Zombie Reagan| 3.16.12 @ 10:18AM
America is the irrational actor here and has been since we first deposed Mosaddegh for British Anglo Persian Oil.
Jack in Wi.| 3.15.12 @ 6:51PM
Give me break Ross. You Neocons never give up. Iran has attacked no-one in 300 years. It is not developing nuclear weapons at this time. All our combined intelligence agencies said so in the NIE reports of 2007 and 2011. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff say so. Several high former intelligence agents in Israel say so, including 2 former heads of the Mossad and one former head of the Shin Bet.
Turkey has the capacity to build nuclear weapons. It could do it more easily then Iran, because it has more nuclear fuel and technical know how. Israel's relations with Turkey are on the downward slide because of the policies of Netanyahu and Lieberman towaard the Palistians. Should we bomb Turkey as well?
Egypt has the ability to develop nuclear weapons as well. Should we bomb them to? I believe Saudia Arabia already has more then enough nuclear weapons to blow Israel off the face of the earth. Who do you think financed the Pakistani bomb? Of course the Pakistani's have the bomb. are they next on your hit list?
Well yesterday we had a discussion where you disputed the fact that you are a neocon. Well I guess this essay has put an end to that argument. Since at least 1994 the Israeli's and their propaganda network have been saying that Iran is within a year or 2 of developing the bomb. Do you really think most of us are that stupid enough to believe you chicken littles.
The fact that the militray and intelligence communities are speaking out tells me that the professionals are sick to death of all the warmongering by radical zionist controled politicians in both Israel and the USA. They have to fight and die in these wars. They are sick of shedding their blood for lies and nonsense.
Clint| 3.15.12 @ 10:56AM
Barry Rubin,
" If Israel attacks Iran would it have backing from anyone else in the world? No, in fact the United States strongly opposes such an operation. Iranian retaliation against oil shipping and terrorist attacks would lead (not overly brave and already appeasement-oriented) Western governments to blame Israel, not Iran. Launching such an attack would ensure a level of international isolation for Israel far higher than what exists today. The idea that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq makes an Israeli attack more attractive is absurd. U.S. forces and interests are in the Gulf and an Israeli attack would--according to the Obama Administration--endanger U.S. interests there.
Would such an attack by Israel be likely to succeed even in doing maximum damage to Iranian facilities? No, a great deal could go wrong, especially against multiple hardened targets at the planes’ maximum range. Planes could get lost or crash or have to turn back. Planes arriving over the targets could miss, or accidentally drop their bombs on civilians, or simply not do much damage. Many targets would remain unscathed.
Additional waves of attack would be needed in a situation where Iran would be better prepared to shoot down the planes. And the second wave would face huge Western opposition. But it would be too late either way since Israel would now be in a full war with Iran.
Imagine a media report after an Israeli attack: A dozen Israeli warplanes hit Iranian nuclear installations today. Three places were damaged to some extent but Iran has a large number of such facilities. Iran and Israel are now in a full state of war. Oil prices zoomed up. The Obama Administration and EU condemned the attack. Iran said it would redouble its drive for nuclear weapons and use them in its defense. Tehran is expected to put the priority on facilities outside of Israel's range.
So given all of these factors why should Israel possibly attack Iran? It is an absurd idea."
Ross Kaminsky | 3.15.12 @ 11:19AM
That's a ridiculous analysis.
Imagine this:
A man comes into your house and is making credible threats to kill your family.
Do you:
A) Try to stop him with a gun that you have within reach, and with which you have demonstrated skill, even understanding that things can go wrong, even horribly wrong?
B) Stand by and hope the criminal doesn't hurt your family?
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.15.12 @ 11:27AM
Clint, you REALLY need to read my book. If you cannot afford it...call me on my cell phone and I will e-mail it to you for "review" (713)569-3896
ISRAEL ISSUES ULTIMATIM TO IRAN
This week, Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke at the AIPAC assembly in New York. Interestingly enough, it was reported that a clear majority of our Congress was in attendance. (National Review Online has his complete speech on video on their home-page today.)
I sat stunned at his openness and bluntness. He said Israel will simply NOT live under the cloud of Iranian nuclear weapons. I for one believe him absolutely.
Many of you have read my book; “America Alone Said NO!” (amazon.com Kindle store.) Are you all aware that you do not need a Kindle device to read Kindle books? You can download Kindle books directly to your computer in about one minute with simple steps anyone can follow. You just direct the Kindle store to direct the E-book to “kindle for PC”.
The reason I mention my book is that there is an ENORMOUS amount of ACURATE critical research underlying the story THAT CAN PROTECT YOU AND YOURS….and give you a heads up about how things could very well play out.
There is no doubt in my mind that if necessary, Israel will “go it alone” when THEY think it is necessary. Why? Because they have already done so TWICE! (Iraq and Syria).
As a civilian, my best estimate is that Israel can put three hundred attack bombers over Iran on each sortie. That means SIX hundred airplanes per day…minus losses.
When they attack…it will be an all-out effort, and with their extensive spy network in Iran, they KNOW where the key targets are down to the meter.
OH, by the way…it hasn’t been discussed, but Israel has six to ten missile carrying submarines that will be on station off Iran with both conventional and nuclear warheads. Call it a hundred and fifty conventional missiles…on target…I would guess on air-defense suppression so their planes have an easier time.
My best guess is that in the event that Iran launches ONE long range missile towards Israel…then Israel MUST go nuclear to blanket Iran’s long range missile sites. (See, Iran just might have a nuke or two bought or built already.)
My estimate is that those Israeli subs hold perhaps 40 nukes on-board….not city killers…but rather tactical sized warheads.
…OH…and I must mention and EMP option that fries every wire and chip in Iran.
Make no mistake. We are on the eve of a major war!
The effects of that war will come to your house, and mine. (If nothing else, you won’t be able to buy gas to get to work.)
Israel MUST pre-empt to survive as a country. In any case, they KNOW their own casualties will be horrendous. Nevertheless they can survive as a people …but only if they pre-empt.
Some twenty thousand short range missiles are already dialed in against Israel. My personal opinion is that those short-range missiles are being “saved up” to swamp Israel’s missile defense shields for the main event.
Ladies and gentlemen…think it through. If you awoke one night with ten suicidal maniacs on your front lawn…what would YOU do? Do you cringe in your bedroom hiding behind your wife …or do you pre-empt by shot-gunning as many of them as you can to protect your family…though it costs you your life?
Pretty simple isn’t it?
The only question is “when” you open fire…or hide behind your wife and kids.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.15.12 @ 11:41AM
Ross,
thank you. I was busy copy-pasting my thoughts from the other day...and your reply came up before mine.
Please recall that Clint's most "devastating " insult; the one he uses first in most cases...is "Israel Firster".
Having read your blog above...it seems you have already read my book. If not, you are welcome to a free "review copy" by calling my cell phone (above) and requesting a copy. Lots of column material from someone who has been there.
Clint| 3.15.12 @ 12:03PM
Do Your Homework.
" Barry Rubin is an American-born Israeli expert on terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, the director of the ICD Global Research in International Affairs Center, and a senior fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center's International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. He is also Research Director of the IDC's Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy; editor of the journal Turkish Studies and the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA); and a member of the editorial board of Middle East Quarterly.
Rubin was born in the United States. He is married to Judith Colp Rubin. He was a deputy director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.He is the co-author, with his wife, of Hating America: A History and a collection of essays entitled Loathing America."
Rubin has been a guest on This Week with David Brinkley, Nightline, Face the Nation, The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour, The Larry King Show, and others on CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Among the newspapers around the world for which he has written are La Vanguardia in Spain, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in Germany; The National Post and The Globe and Mail in Canada; La Opinión, Liberal Forum, and Limes in Italy; The Age, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Australian Financial Review in Australia; Zaman, Referens, and Radikal in Turkey; and The Pioneer in India. Rubin is a frequent contributor to the Middle East column in The Jerusalem Post."
Zombie Reagan| 3.15.12 @ 11:45AM
If these people are as irrational as you say, they will never quit fighting, it will be endless "Total War," it will be another Vietnam or Afghanistan, till we finally pack up and go home, nothing achieved but bankruptcy and more dead Americans. You want to see Iranian martyrs, wait till Iran is attacked by the Infidels. You will get your fill of martyrs.
Drek| 3.15.12 @ 12:48PM
You've failed to understand the underlying motivations of the forces of mohammad.
The faithful are instructed to take up the sword until all men profess that there is no god but allah, and mohammad is his prophet.
It has nothing to do with outside provocation. It has nothing to do with the perceived misdeeds or mistakes of American foreign policy.
We could all move to Mars, and who doubts that some iman or mullah would issue a fatwa interpreting mohammad's instruction to encompass even those who moved byeond the Earth!
We are in a religious war!
The only reason that we've overlooked that fact is because we've kind of had our hand full with Soviets, Nazis, what have you. And the fact that the followers of mohammad had trouble constructing a decent out house...........
But make no mistake, if you allow them nuclear cover, THEY ARE GOING TO make you aware of them, continually, endlessly, because they are following their warped and blasphemous understanding of the will of the almighty.
Zombie Reagan| 3.15.12 @ 3:50PM
'We are in a religious war!"
You may be a chickenhawk in a religious war, but I am not. If a few Muslim terrorists want to kill us it is because we have been monkeying around in their desert too long killing Muslims in Iraq, arming the Israelis and putting troops in the Middle East. I wish people like you would move to Mars. It would be fitting see as how he is the God of War.
Bob Grant| 3.15.12 @ 12:44PM
Ross,
I have a question for you:
Do you think the Ayatollah's sit around and use Game Theory to strategize their next moves, wondering what Israel or the U.S. considers "rational"?
I don't give them that much credit. I believe they have a mission statement that's been broadcasted to all who are willing to listen since '79 and will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal, however long it takes, because for them, their cause is greater than the leaders themselves or the people they govern. If it takes decades then so be it. They KNOW we (the West, Israel) determine the timeline as much as them.
I just don't think they have much use for gaming out strategies or the concept of rationality.
They believe in a backward theology that never experienced a reformation like other religions in the World, and have a very base, childlike view of reality.
You can't rationalize with a two year old. You can't rationalize with a people who have no concept of it.
Drek| 3.15.12 @ 1:47PM
They're fully convinced that they're accomplishing the will of the almighty.
We, on the other hand, are always the "arrogant." Why "arrogant?" Not because of our foreign policy, but for the simple fact that we have deliberately and knowingly refused to make the profession of faith, that "there is no god but allah and mohammad is his prophet."
When they deal with us, they see themselves as dealing with the forces of satanic rejection of their false and blasphemous "prophet" mohammad.
There's no dealing with these people, because there is no way that they're going to put on par whateve we have to offer them with the promises of their false prophet.
Their false prophet tells them how to live to gain eternal life.
We on the other hand try to tell them to get along with those they deem apostate muslims, unclean jews and idol worshipers.
So of course they're not going to listen to us.
This whole 25 year plus diplomatic outreach to that regime, and those like that regime, is a joke.
A sick joke!
Zombie Reagan| 3.16.12 @ 10:20AM
America is the irrational actor here and has been since we first deposed Mosaddegh for British Anglo Persian Oil up until the irrational invasion of Iraq in 2003 over nonexistent WMD.
crazy| 3.15.12 @ 2:23PM
Our time would be better spent listening to what the Iranian regime has been telling us about their plans and intentions. Nuclear weapons represent a guarantee against western military action (see Russia, China, Pakistan) and a seat at the international big-boy table.
No amount of international arm-twisting is going to deter the Iranian regime unless they come to fear the US will actually use ALL elements of American power (ie ICBMs). Does anyone really think Obama or his replacement would do that? If not, why would Iran and why should they stop?
The best possible outcome here is a new Cold War. The problem is it is not clear who would captain each side and which countries would be on which side.
Clint| 3.15.12 @ 3:37PM
" Ex-Mossad head Dagan: Israel should wait on Iran attack
March 12, 2012
JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said Israel should hold off on attacking Iran and that he would "prefer" that the United States execute any attack.
Dagan also said in an interview aired Sunday on the CBS news program "60 Minutes" that he feared an Israeli strike on Iran would lead to a regional war that would see at least 50,000 missiles fired on Israel from Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south.
"It will be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life. I think that Israel will be in a very serious situation for quite a time," Dagan told Lesley Stahl. "And wars, you know how they start. You never know how you are ending it."
Dagan began the interview by saying that "An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it."
He went on to say, "No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions. They will have to pay dearly and all the consequences for it."
One sign of the Iranians' forward thinking, Dagan said, is how they stall through diplomacy.
Dagan pointed out that a nuclear Iran is an international problem, not solely an Israeli one. Thus he believes that the United States could be the ones to attack Iran's nuclear program.
"If I prefer that somebody will do it, I always prefer that Americans will do it," he said."
The Israelis Wanna Hold Our Coats Again,While We Carry Out Their Foreign Agenda.
The Little Tail Thinks It Can Wag The American Big Dog.