Thoughts on a Saturday
On Terrorism as a US tactic:
There is a great difference between covert action on a terrorist cell and actual terrorist action on a civilian populace. If I read you right, you are advocating the latter?
I think that is a horrible idea, and, thank goodness, incredibly unlikely. Terrorism is what the weak do to the strong. It is a defection from all international norms: because cooperation in such an ethical paradigm renders the terrorist impotent, he chooses to operate outside the arena of acceptable behavior to achieve his goals, whatever they are.
We have a very strong interest in keeping this dynamic alive. As long as terrorism remains outside the norm, and as long as we continue to offer large disincentives for its practice, it will remain rare and unattractive as a strategic option. If the strongest player in the game begins to operate outside the cooperative norms, then the norms themselves will crumble and there will be a large flight towards total defection. The only thing that keeps countries from defecting now is the strength and posture of a United States ready and willing to add massive costs to any such move towards the unethical.
If we are to truly become safe from terrorism, we need to strengthen this ethical paradigm, and we need to get better at enforcing it upon everyone else.
On Iran: If I remember right Rasfanjani publically vowed to destroy Israel, even if it meant losing 200 million Iranians to a counterstrike. As he said, one or two nukes and Israel doesn't exist anymore. With his perverted calculus, the cost to Iran would be worth it.
And he was the moderate.
We know that Israel won't live with that threat. America won't either, and Iraq already has a long list of complaints, a list that pales when compared to the risk of a nuclear Iran next door.
Iran will not give in to diplomacy. Sanctions from the EU and US are likely, but not from the UN because of Russia and China. Even then, it would not guarantee a nuclear-free Iran.
Therefore, from this vantage point US military action looks inevitable.
We want to make this look like a punitive action, so leaving it to Israel causes all sorts of diplomatic problems. It would be seen as a war of aggression by the Arabs, and all the conspiracy-theorists would be seen as vindicated about a Zionist plot to control the ME (C4). Plus, the US would have to okay the mission and Israel would have to use Iraqi airspace. The Israel option therefore seems untenable. If we dally, Israel will be forced to do it, but the cost to our overall strategy in the ME would be enormous.
Iraq would also cause problems, most of which has to do with the quality and success of the mission. That leaves us. In the near future, we will be forced to attack Iran.
Does anybody see any flaw in that argument, and if not, what happens when Iran comes to the same conclusion?
If something is inevitable, it should be done when chances favor us and we control the initiative. A slow wind up in the UN won't cut it, I fear, yet I expect it will happen anyways. In the meantime, Iran is getting ready.
I am not as sanguine about waiting as you are, and I don't think Israel is either. If Israel thought it was necessary to attack Osirak, they are not going to allow Iran to bring their nukes online. And an Israeli attack could shatter the fragile progress we've made in Iraq so far, and the entire region could erupt in turmoil.
I think it comes down to time, and we simply don't have any. If we had 15 years, then sure, a revolution would be our bet. But we don't. The processing plant is back in action, the bomb design is ready, the Shahab-3 has been remodeled, and the hardliners have taken over the entire government. Ahmadinejad is training thousands as suicide bombers, and the ruling elite do not even bother to hide their intentions: they are going to spread Islam, whatever the cost, and they are going to start with Israel and the US.
To quote Saruman: "What time do you think we have?"
C4: Israel is not a signatory to the treaty. And yes, that makes all the difference. They developed the tech on their own. NPT signatories do not, they are given nuclear tech in exchange for promises, which Iran has broken.
Give it up. Iran is not just a threat to Israel. They are our problem, too.
There is a great difference between covert action on a terrorist cell and actual terrorist action on a civilian populace. If I read you right, you are advocating the latter?
I think that is a horrible idea, and, thank goodness, incredibly unlikely. Terrorism is what the weak do to the strong. It is a defection from all international norms: because cooperation in such an ethical paradigm renders the terrorist impotent, he chooses to operate outside the arena of acceptable behavior to achieve his goals, whatever they are.
We have a very strong interest in keeping this dynamic alive. As long as terrorism remains outside the norm, and as long as we continue to offer large disincentives for its practice, it will remain rare and unattractive as a strategic option. If the strongest player in the game begins to operate outside the cooperative norms, then the norms themselves will crumble and there will be a large flight towards total defection. The only thing that keeps countries from defecting now is the strength and posture of a United States ready and willing to add massive costs to any such move towards the unethical.
If we are to truly become safe from terrorism, we need to strengthen this ethical paradigm, and we need to get better at enforcing it upon everyone else.
On Iran: If I remember right Rasfanjani publically vowed to destroy Israel, even if it meant losing 200 million Iranians to a counterstrike. As he said, one or two nukes and Israel doesn't exist anymore. With his perverted calculus, the cost to Iran would be worth it.
And he was the moderate.
We know that Israel won't live with that threat. America won't either, and Iraq already has a long list of complaints, a list that pales when compared to the risk of a nuclear Iran next door.
Iran will not give in to diplomacy. Sanctions from the EU and US are likely, but not from the UN because of Russia and China. Even then, it would not guarantee a nuclear-free Iran.
Therefore, from this vantage point US military action looks inevitable.
We want to make this look like a punitive action, so leaving it to Israel causes all sorts of diplomatic problems. It would be seen as a war of aggression by the Arabs, and all the conspiracy-theorists would be seen as vindicated about a Zionist plot to control the ME (C4). Plus, the US would have to okay the mission and Israel would have to use Iraqi airspace. The Israel option therefore seems untenable. If we dally, Israel will be forced to do it, but the cost to our overall strategy in the ME would be enormous.
Iraq would also cause problems, most of which has to do with the quality and success of the mission. That leaves us. In the near future, we will be forced to attack Iran.
Does anybody see any flaw in that argument, and if not, what happens when Iran comes to the same conclusion?
If something is inevitable, it should be done when chances favor us and we control the initiative. A slow wind up in the UN won't cut it, I fear, yet I expect it will happen anyways. In the meantime, Iran is getting ready.
I am not as sanguine about waiting as you are, and I don't think Israel is either. If Israel thought it was necessary to attack Osirak, they are not going to allow Iran to bring their nukes online. And an Israeli attack could shatter the fragile progress we've made in Iraq so far, and the entire region could erupt in turmoil.
I think it comes down to time, and we simply don't have any. If we had 15 years, then sure, a revolution would be our bet. But we don't. The processing plant is back in action, the bomb design is ready, the Shahab-3 has been remodeled, and the hardliners have taken over the entire government. Ahmadinejad is training thousands as suicide bombers, and the ruling elite do not even bother to hide their intentions: they are going to spread Islam, whatever the cost, and they are going to start with Israel and the US.
To quote Saruman: "What time do you think we have?"
C4: Israel is not a signatory to the treaty. And yes, that makes all the difference. They developed the tech on their own. NPT signatories do not, they are given nuclear tech in exchange for promises, which Iran has broken.
Give it up. Iran is not just a threat to Israel. They are our problem, too.
posted by John Aristides at 8:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home