-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By David Rothkopf
Friday, November 4, 2011 - 10:58 AM
Share
The government of Iran, much like many across the Middle East, believes that the Obama administration is so consumed with a desire to undo the wrongs of the Bush era and get out from under the costs of two difficult, hard-to-justify wars in the region that it would never intervene against them militarily. Iranian leaders seem to believe that the United States would not risk another war in the region just to stop their development of nuclear weapons.
The government of Israel, also worried that its number one ally has lost its appetite for complex entanglements in the region, seems to think that by playing the Iran card it can goad the U.S. into action that will restore the bonds between the two nations. Israeli leaders believe that they can translate their perception of Iran as an existential threat against them and a brazen, rising regional hegemon into a new renewed U.S. commitment to the region and closer ties with Israel.
Both are wrong.
According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, which has an extraordinary package of stories on the growing Iran risk and the escalation of that risk associated with an upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that will reveal game-changing progress by Iran in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, even America's closest allies in Britain believe "President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election." Wrong.
Here in the U.S., analysts believe that Obama would not risk being drawn into a war in the region or the upheaval a series of attacks might cause. Even though tensions are definitely rising and those familiar with the IAEA report that will be circulated next week say, "It is going to be hard for even Moscow or Beijing to downplay its significance," there is a sense that Obama won't pull the trigger. Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour was quoted by the Guardian as saying, "A U.S. military attack on Iran is not going to happen during Obama's presidency. If you're Obama, and your priority is to resuscitate the American economy and decrease the U.S. footprint in the Middle East, bombing Iran would defeat those two objectives. Oil prices would skyrocket." While an attack is no sure thing yet, the analysis is wrong.
Certainly no one in the Obama Administration is eager to launch an attack on Iran. Taking steps that would risk being drawn into another war or that might damage the global economy further or could distract from the world at home would be vigorously opposed by several of the President's most senior advisors, and he undoubtedly would be deeply divided on the issue himself.
But in the end, as dangerous as an attack might be militarily and politically, if the President believes there is no other alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the ability to produce highly enriched uranium and thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will seriously consider military action and it is hardly a certainty he won't take it. From a domestic political perspective, right now Obama's strong suit is his national security performance. For the first time in years, he has taken the issue away from the Republicans. Right now they simply cannot attack him as being weak or assert they understand defense better. That is why they are so silent on the issue. Obama has only four real areas of vulnerability on this front. First, if he pushes too hard for defense budget cuts before the election, the Republicans will go after him. He won't. He will seek cuts but will be comparatively cautious. Next, if there were a terrorist attack of some sort and the administration seemed unprepared or responded weakly, that would create a problem. But that is a perennial wild card. Third, if he distances himself from Israel, the Republicans will seek to capitalize on the sense some supporters of that country have that Obama is not a committed friend. There is already plenty of activity in that area ... and the Israelis are eager to take advantage of their perceived election year leverage. And finally, if Iran were to detonate a nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely attacked for a policy of engagement that ultimately proved to be toothless.
As a consequence, the President and his advisors are acutely aware of the Iran issue. But their concerns go much deeper. The President and his national security leadership are deeply worried about the potential consequences associated with an Iranian nuclear breakthrough. It would likely trigger an arms race in the region at a time of considerable instability. It would immediately ratchet up tensions between Iran and Israel ... but also between Iran and its historic enemies in the Gulf. It would both raise Iran's perceived clout and underscore the absence of a counterweight either from the U.S., the West, or the international community at large.
While an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities almost certainly would produce a spike in oil prices, those prices would stabilize if the attacks were successful and did not produce a protracted war. Further, with the world economy in a slump, prices are feeling less upward pressure anyway these days. However, if Iran gained nuclear weapons, it might trigger a kind of uncertainty that would be protracted and would have a longer-term effect on oil prices.
The British assumption that the President would not take this action close to the election is mistaken on two levels. First, from the most cynical perspective possible, a strong action right before the election in response to a genuine threat after an extended effort to pursue more peaceful options to resolving the issue might well work very well for the President politically. The American people's reaction to an attack at any time is likely to give the President the benefit of the doubt. That said, it would be a mistake to think this President would make such a cynical analysis. Should he act on an issue like this, he will do so without making any political calculus. He's a politician to be sure. But on national security matters he has grown both increasingly self-confident and proven himself to be exceptionally disciplined. Indeed, the calculus as to what he might do needs to factor in that he has achieved some success taken strong military actions of a focused nature. The "no more Middle East wars" notion went out the window with Libya. The "Obama is timid on these matters" thesis was actually silently put to an early death when the President, just in office, ordered the ultimately successful effort to eliminate Osama bin Laden.
Finally, the Israelis are wrong if they think that U.S. cooperation on this issue will restore the bond between the two nations. They may work side-by-side on this as they did on the Stuxnet intervention. They share close ties. But so long as Israel pursues settlements and other policies that inflame the Palestinian situation and make a solution less likely, this administration will be more divided internally in its views on Israel than its public statements may suggest. Further, the reality is that history is moving against the Israelis. Not only are America's strategic priorities shifting -- the end of the Cold War and the War on Terror were both blows to the "indispensability" of Israel to the U.S. -- but other countries, like China and India, are gaining more influence in the region as they become more important consumers of the region's oil. And they view the Israeli-Palestinian issue as an irritant, a risk to their interests and a matter that needs to be disposed of, one way or another, whichever serves their ultimate goal of stable, cheap supplies of energy. In fact, paradoxically, it is probably a nuclear Iran that stands the best chance of keeping Israel more relevant to America.
None of this means America will act. But it would be a mistake to bet against it or to consider U.S. threats to be mere posturing.
The Iranian theocrats idiology the media prefers to forget
Do you prefer to wait and see either the #1 worldwide expert is wrong?
---
Islamist Iran ideology that politicians and the so called human rights organization prefer to ignore.
1: Prof Bernard Lewis the West’s #1 expert on Islam warned of the:
APOCALYPTIC MINDSET OF THE IRANIAN EADERSHIP.
The apocalyptic time has come.“Ma’adi” the Muslim messiah is already her.
THE FINAL BATTLE HAS ALREDY BEGUN.
THE END OF TIME HAS COME-and sooner the better.
Islamism theocrats cannot be deterred by the arms control strategies that worked with the Soviets
---
2: Iran ideology:
*Their ultimate desire is to export Islam until the entire world will be one mighty caliphate
* Iran theocratic constitution: All procedures and rights are subordinate to the theocratic non elected Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader.
*Policy to non Islamic religions:
Teachers were convicted of the crime of teaching Baha'i religion and hanged
* A husband can kill his adulterous wife without punishment while a woman is punishable by death.
*Iran opposes liberal and democratic ideologies.
Iran Islamist leaders have said that liberal democracy is on its last legs.
*Islamist top leaders declared that the U.S. and its allies have lost the political will to defend their ideologies.
A new international order extending Iranian power and influence is marching.
* To Iran's Islamist leaders, nuclear power and its weaponization represent security for the regime as well as a means by which Iran's internationalist agenda might be enlarged
* Ayatollah Khomein founder of Islamist Iran called on Christians to "open your hearts and embrace Islam".
"Allah has made it intolerable for Muslims to obey a regime which is not predicated upon the Sharia"
---
3: Islamist Iran is one of the main terror supporters worldwide.
* Michael Scheuer, former CIA officer:
The definition of a state sponsor of terrorism is a country that uses surrogates as its weapon to attack other people.
The primary example to this day is Iran
* Islamist Iran president supported the Shi’a who bombed Western embassies in Kuwait. In 1987
* Iranian officials were involved in both training and assisting in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the U.S. military facility at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
* Terror organization in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan as well Hezbollah in Lebanon- Hamas in Gaza receives military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran.
* Argentina, 2 years ago, issued an international arrest order against a former Iranian president and several high ranks Iranian accused of sponsoring Buenos Aires terror attacks that killed 100 Argentineans.
* Iran has provided sniper units to kill Syrian protesters targeted by the regime of President Bashar Assad.
I'm getting sick & tired of reading an almost identical, semi-article of Iran-bashing propaganda from one of you radical supporters of Israel as a counter meassure, every time there is an article on Iran. Is this pre-planned? YACK!!!!
You get your pay yet from the IRGC Salad?
as you use the term 'zionists' to describe Israel, you are evidently an iranian plant or vicious anti-semite.
LOL
Israelis and their government label themselves Zionists, the founding ideology of Israel is Zionism. So, by your dim lights, they are Iranian plants and/or vicious anti-Semites.
Such is the muddled thinking of Zionists, like you.
Ariely,
I am not sure I agree with your assessment of the Mullahs Apocalyptic and "suicidal" conviction. I do recall an interview with former head of the Mossad, Efreim Halevy, who said, "despite their outward bravado, in every confrontation with us (the Mossad), Iranians have backed off.
The Iranian young generation who make up more then 75% of the population, are well educated (Trust me, I watch some of the Iranian language programs, and hear them express their real views in private). They all loath these backward Mullahs, whom they blame for selling their 3000 year old Persian cultural, and heritage to the Arabs, to whom Iranians have little respect. They call the Mullahs "Arabs", by way of utter insult.
I won't be surprised that, once the regime change in Syria is complete - next in line will be Iran.
Today, there are more then 60 well funded opposition groups to the regime throughout the world - including the dreaded Mujahedin-e Khalq headed by Maryam Rajavi. Together, with forces already in Iran, and western intelligence services, these groups will spring into action and raise again.
In the vast world of social media and instant communications, these backward Mullahs will have a little chance to stay in power. being as cowered as they are, they all will leave town at the first direct threat to their lives.
And I am sick & tire of people bashing Iran's national dishes. The pollow Keshmes, or the Ghorme Sabzi. That is not nice and not fair.
Those young will be sacrificed
The Mullahs will start a nuclear war with Israel that will sacrifice those young city folk, and send them straight to the bosom of Allah. The reason Israel (and the US) is so reluctant to attack Iran is that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Iran bought Soviet nukes in 1991 when the empire fell. It probably doesn't have too many, but who knows? Iran's rulers are not content to have a few nukes. They are the leaders of a death cult that wants to go down in the most glorious martyrdom that history has ever seen. The mere destruction of Israel is not good enough for them. To achieve full glory they have to be able to build their own H-bombs and mount them on ICBMs by the hundreds. Then Iran can destroy the USA as well as Israel, and transform the world in the process. Now that would a prize worth total martyrdom.
Gotta go with SABABA03 on this one
It is obvious that the Mullahs have a big demographic problem facing them in the next 10-20 years. The majority of the population was born after the 1979 Revolution and by then, they will have the reins of power. This is a group which is disaffected with Islamicism and whose power is on the rise.
Just to add:
I firmly believe the Iranian nuclear program is a complete bluff used for the purposes of generating hysteria from the West. No country with the intention of developing nuclear weapons does so in such an open and obvious way at the enrichment stage the way Iran has done. They have all but advertised they are trying to create gobs of weapons grade fissile material.
The problem with such an approach is Iran does not have uranium supplies of its own. They depend on foreign imports for their nuclear material. If they were genuinely looking to build a bomb, they would be more secret about it at this stage. The enrichment stage is where foreign intervention is most destructive to the efforts. A legitimate effort to build a bomb would be done more clandestinely. We would be unaware of their efforts at this stage and further down until they surprise the world with a test. By the time of a test it all would become academic. Every country with actual nukes has done it this way. (Israel didn't have the test but they also didn't reveal their nuclear program until long after the fact).
IMHO this is all a ploy to create an outside conflict to serve two purposes:
1. Revitalize their power among the disaffected. An outside enemy is good for making people forget internal squabbles.
2. Justify further repression of the pro-democracy movement as a "5th Column".
The Iranian theocrats idiology the media prefers to forget
Do you prefer to wait and see either the #1 worldwide expert is wrong?
---
Islamist Iran ideology that politicians and the so called human rights organization prefer to ignore.
1: Prof Bernard Lewis the West’s #1 expert on Islam warned of the:
APOCALYPTIC MINDSET OF THE IRANIAN EADERSHIP.
The apocalyptic time has come.“Ma’adi” the Muslim messiah is already her.
THE FINAL BATTLE HAS ALREDY BEGUN.
THE END OF TIME HAS COME-and sooner the better.
Islamism theocrats cannot be deterred by the arms control strategies that worked with the Soviets
---
2: Iran ideology:
*Their ultimate desire is to export Islam until the entire world will be one mighty caliphate
* Iran theocratic constitution: All procedures and rights are subordinate to the theocratic non elected Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader.
*Policy to non Islamic religions:
Teachers were convicted of the crime of teaching Baha'i religion and hanged
* A husband can kill his adulterous wife without punishment while a woman is punishable by death.
*Iran opposes liberal and democratic ideologies.
Iran Islamist leaders have said that liberal democracy is on its last legs.
*Islamist top leaders declared that the U.S. and its allies have lost the political will to defend their ideologies.
A new international order extending Iranian power and influence is marching.
* To Iran's Islamist leaders, nuclear power and its weaponization represent security for the regime as well as a means by which Iran's internationalist agenda might be enlarged
* Ayatollah Khomein founder of Islamist Iran called on Christians to "open your hearts and embrace Islam".
"Allah has made it intolerable for Muslims to obey a regime which is not predicated upon the Sharia"
---
3: Islamist Iran is one of the main terror supporters worldwide.
* Michael Scheuer, former CIA officer:
The definition of a state sponsor of terrorism is a country that uses surrogates as its weapon to attack other people.
The primary example to this day is Iran
* Islamist Iran president supported the Shi’a who bombed Western embassies in Kuwait. In 1987
* Iranian officials were involved in both training and assisting in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the U.S. military facility at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
* Terror organization in Yemen, Somalia, Sudan as well Hezbollah in Lebanon- Hamas in Gaza receives military training, weapons, and financial support from Iran.
* Argentina, 2 years ago, issued an international arrest order against a former Iranian president and several high ranks Iranian accused of sponsoring Buenos Aires terror attacks that killed 100 Argentineans.
* Iran has provided sniper units to kill Syrian protesters targeted by the regime of President Bashar Assad.
This AIPAC pre-written propaganda is sickening the first time posted above. You had to post it the 2nd time? You vomit propaganda!
Gilad Atzmon (Hebrew: ???? ??????; born June 9, 1963) is an Israeli-born British jazz saxophonist.
His views about Israel, are as credible as Hizbollah's egghead Nasrallah.
Overriding all current political stuff
What happened to GHW Bush, one of the two modern presidents who failed to get the second term he sought. This was despite his having presented a proud nation wih a war victory against Saddam Hussein's Iraq (Gulf One) shortly before the start of the 1982 electoral season. America admired the military victory, then voted in a man whose appeal was based entirely on campaigning about the domestic economy.
It's on the economy that all current knock down drag out Washington fight is about, and all issues connected with US military force have receded into the background -- some to virtual invisibility. Big change from the Bush II years.
The president has concrete plans to reduce unemployment but cannot get Congressional acceptance. Leading Republicans seem to have no concrete unemployment reduction plans, placing their faith in suggestions that the richer the nation's richest become, the more they'll want to reduce unemployment: it's not really Congress's business at all. Excellent policy for the nation's richest.
Iran war is disaster. Cui Bono?
Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings, recently wrote in the Nixon Centre's "National Interest" that a new war on Iran would be “catastrophic”.
“An Israeli attack on Iran is a disaster in the making. And it will directly impact key strategic American interests. Iran will see an attack as American supported if not American orchestrated. The aircraft in any strike will be American-produced, supplied and funded F-15s and F-16s, and most of the ordnance will be from American stocks. Washington's $3 billion in assistance annually makes possible the IDF's conventional superiority in the region. Iran will almost certainly retaliate against both U.S. and Israeli targets.... Even if Iran chooses to retaliate in less risky ways, it could respond indirectly by encouraging Hezbollah attacks against Israel and Shia militia attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, as well as terrorist attacks against American and Israeli targets in the Middle East and beyond.”
“America's greatest vulnerability would be in Afghanistan. Iran could easily increase its assistance to the Taliban and make the already-difficult Afghan mission much more complicated. Western Afghanistan is especially vulnerable to Iranian mischief, and NATO has few troops there to cover a vast area. President Obama would have to send more, not fewer, troops to fight that war.”
“Making matters worse, considering the likely violent ramifications, even a successful Israeli raid would only delay Iran's nuclear program.... Support for the existing sanctions on Iran after a strike would likely evaporate.”
=====
This short summary does not even address the issue of the gates to the Straights of Hormuz slamming shut. Thorough which transits about half of the entire world's supply of petroleum. This can be easily done by small boat mining actions and various missile strikes. It does not require the defeat of US naval operations, just the vast spiking of insurance rates for tankers attempting to beat the blockage and half a dozen getting sunk.
Do you think China would be pleased at this? Does the total collapse of the world's economy sound felicitous? In what nation's interests would this be in?
Zionism is racism and unending war. Love it, or leave it.
Gambling Big just like Wall Street did
So our intelligence was so good on Iraq are we sure they don't have a bomb already? Or as wilh planning to invade Cuba all the sudden it seems some missiles may already be armed... everyone knows the axis of evils greatest hits list and Iran has no illusion it has been listed for 30 years with Iraq weaponized against them once before... I doubt they don't take any move by us seriously... just because we lost those bases and stuff with the fall of the Shah.. we still think we own the place and the Russians just managed to undo our original coup.... so then we have to teach the Russians a lesson by luring them into Afghanistan so we can get on our high horse and refuse to go the the Moscow Olympics!! Our petty world dominance bickering has harmed millions of people orver the years but they haven't forgotten... and they have a lot more than 9/11 to not forget like a downed Iranian passenger plane full of people or a Chinese Embassy in Belgrade the foibles of super-ego can have it's downsides over time.
We may have to bomb Iran, or we may not. In any case, I think Obama is much more qualified to make this decision than the hotheaded George W. Bush, and that's why I voted for him.
Two questions regarding an attack
I am leaning towards an attack on Iran but the two questions that I don't think anyone can know a priori but which I would like to see more, and more profound, analysis of, remain:
1) Would an attack work? By work I mean would it set back the Iranian effort to perfect the technology to produce fission bombs, by at least several years? Nothing is forever and the Iranians could call possible suppliers of hardware and knowledge the morning after a successful attack but if they were brought close to square one on the quest to build a bomb, that would indeed be highly desirable. It would also be interesting to see analysis of possible nuclear fallout problems resulting from an attack.
2) Could this escalate into a general war? How severe is Iran's ability to strike back at Israel, US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, at Europe, even at the US itself (I presume Iran would have the right to attack any country that attacked it, under international law). And how would they do so? Missiles? Agents/sleeper cells? Outright invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan? Stepping up supply of IEDs? And would people in Iran rally around the regime?
I personally think the prospect of the Tehran regime with nuclear weapons is so stark that provided a good answer to (1), I would tolerate a rather bad one to (2). But, the answer to (1) had better be good.
M. SIMBA, this reply works for you as well.
If the US/British/NATO bomb Iran, Iranians will drag Israel into a long-term coflict. Look, stopping Iran from obtaining a bomb may not be as easy as you think. Just bombing the underground facilities won't stop a program that's been in the making for nearly 30 yrs. Experts can testify that the Iranians could have easily created multiple small labs, spread throughout their vast plateau in the pursuit of the bomb, fully realizing that at one point they may have come clean with the IAEA & the international community about the known enrichment facilities they now operate. Even the optimist Israeli & American experts believe that attacking these known underground sites will only delay the Iranian ambition. on the other hand, a military attack on Iran could lead to long-term conflict; do you think that Israelis will be able to sustain a long-term war spread over 6, 8, or more years in that region when they're surrounded with adversaries to their south, north, & east, waiting for opportunities to hit at Israel? Are you counting on the US & the British to carry out this long-term conflict on behalf of Israel? Look at Iraq & Afghanistan after nearly a decade of fighting & trillions of dollars wasted to no avail! A war with Iran will hurt Israel's standing in the ME permanently.
FP Mag is becoming a joke bc of you all
You make reading the comments of a brilliant magazine a futile enterprise: no small feat!
Are individuals by and large so incapable of tabling their ideological predilections to simply comment on an article without going off on an Israel-Palestine diatribe? Just address the topic at hand; don't quote known self-loathing Jews like Atzmon--how about you think up some anti-Semitic drivel for yourself? or rant about how shocked, *shocked* you are about your perception of Israeli politics. Sickening. Just sickening.
What a waste of a good forum.
The article was well thought out , concise and to the point. The fact is that Obama's well thought out Foreign Policies have so far proved to be superior to several administrations before him. And that is the point of this article. He will seek out heavier sanctions, put more pressure on the soon to collapse Iranian Regime and re-foment the Green revolution that the Bush administration ignored, that in my mind was the beginning of the Arab Spring.
Not a complete waste.
. . . to convince Iran that the US will attack. This article seems to be part of that wheezy, off-tune orchestra.
Reality:
Iran will soon reach "breakout" capability.
No attack can reverse that, but any attack will cement Iran's resolve to develop and deploy nuclear weapons.
Anyone who believes that such a war can be won and over with quickly is a liar or a moron.
Israel will suffer massive damage if there's a war, which will be protracted and which will extend to various Zionist outposts and critical resources around the globe.
A nuclear attack by Israel will prompt nuclear retaliation. If, as some Israeli fanatics threaten, Israel will cause massive global damage as it goes down, Jews everywhere will be, unfortunately, blamed, and not many of them may survive.
Another way to deal with the Mullahs.
Arvay writes: "Iran will soon reach "breakout" capability"
why use military force to nullify Iran's military nuclear program? - when it is already have been demonstrated elsewhere that people themselves can bring about the needed change there.
Hopefully sooner then later, we will see the 53M disaffected Iranian young will pour into the streets and demand the Mullah to go. This time around, EU, definitely US & Israel will provide tangible support. It will be the platform of facebook, Tweeter, and other social media which bring about regime change in Iran.
Once the regime is changed to a secular government, the first order, they will declare all Iran's nuclear program will be halted. Call for improved relationship with Israel & US. and end of support to Hamas & Hizbollah.
Much easier and less bloody then bomb their nuclear sites.
To say that world's economy cold survive the steep spike in oil prices from Iran closing the Straights of Hormuz is wishful thinking. If Iran closes the Straights for even a few months, oil prices would more than double. The US auto industry would collapse, people using heating oil in winter would go broke, and the airline industry would collapse. These are just a few examples. Unemployment could double. If you think 9 percent unemployment is bad, imagine 18 percent. We would enter a true depression, one rivaling the Great Depression. Any recovery would take decades.
Closing the Straights is a realistic possibility. We've seen Iran's abilities at asymmetric warfare before. It's junior varsity, Hezbollah, stood up to Israel, which has the latest American weapons systems. Iran has had plenty of time to plan closing the Straights. And they only have to close the Straights for 6 months at most.
Will you send your son or daughter or husband to attack Iran?
How much is protecting Israel from a percieved threat actually worth to you, personally? Or to the taxpayers, already $2T or so down after the wars? Have we all forgotten that there already IS a terrorist nation in the region with WMD and the willingness to use them against civilans, with nuclear weapons illegally acquired? The next time Israel/AIPAC comes knocking with some crazy story about how scary *their* enemies are to *us*, let's just send them on their way - they deserve what they get.
Israel's intend to use Iran as a scapegoat to pressure a weak US president (Israelis have the US congress in their pocket) through its viciously influential lobby just before the election to increase pressure on Iran not necessarily for being an existential threat to it but rather its adversary standing in the way of its hegemonic ambitions in the region. Regardless of the idiotic rhetoric of Ahmadinejad which mostly directed at constituents & audiences at home, it is naïve to think the Mullahs are indeed trigger-happy mad or psychotic; they wouldn’t have been able to maintain power even through force over the second most sophisticated ME population of 70 mil for this long, under constant harassment from the West. Israel knows that better than anyone else in the West. You also disregard the fact that Israel presently feel isolated internationally, perhaps more so than at any other times in her young history as the UN is preparing yet to cast another vote for the possible recognition of the Palestinian statehood; let us not forget that the UN just voted in favor of the Pals in the UNESCO case & the US wasn't able to prevent it despite her veto power. Let us not forget the “Arab Spring” which has thus far only given rise to the Islamists future leaders who may not be as tolerant/friendly toward Israel as the previous pro-Western, secular leaders/dictators & Israel is rightfully concerned about the uncertain future policies of her neighbors toward it. The US & Western Europe view Israel as a balancing force that protects & enhances their economic & political interests i.e. arm sales, investments/exports, oil purchase/explorations (oil Companies), regional security & stability, military bases, etc.in GCC members & other countries in the ME. Even though, the Cold War has ended, we still have some concerns about the Russians’ intentions & the economic rise has made a formidable competitor out of China; for all those reasons & more, we need a non-Arab ally there that we can use (strong intelligence service) & trust. Iranian Mullahs want the bomb (or the ability to make it) as a deterrent. Israel wants to be the only country in the ME (Pakistan is in S. Asia) with a nuclear leverage, therefore, Iran is a whooping-boy & we all have to improvise to keep Israel happy because we need Israel in the Islamic ME.
chicken salad writes:
"they wouldn’t have been able to maintain power even through force over the second most sophisticated ME population of 70 mil for this long,"
The same thing was said about other former Arab & Islamic dictators who lasted longer then the Mullahs.
Wait until Bashar Assad is dealt with (read removed), then the same templed will be applied in Iran - this time with overt support of EU, US & Israel.
In regards to rise of the Islamists - they always succeeded on people luck of freedom and economic dependency, which these groups were all too happy to exploit, such that increase people's dependency on them for their basic needs..
No worry. Once freedom of expression, tied with improved standard of living will take hold there, which certainly will come through more investment from the western countries, will be kiss of death to the Islamists.
Iran and Israel’s Southern Front
Iran and Israel’s Southern Front
The admiration for Iran became a hallmark of Islamic Jihad and even led some of its activists in the 1990?s to convert from Sunni Islam to Shiite Islam. By 2000, while Saudi Arabia emerged as the main funder of Hamas, Islamic Jihad was backed ...
Israelis following the escalation of rocket launches against southern Israel this past week probably noticed all the reports that the Palestinian organization behind the attacks was Islamic Jihad. There were approximately 40 rockets and mortars that were fired by the organization over a two day period. The current round of attacks began with the launch of a Grad rocket that hit near Gedera, on Wednesday, Oct. 26, which also happened to be the anniversary of the 1995 elimination of the founder of Islamic Jihad, Fathi Shakaki, in Malta.
Israel responded three days later by eliminating a five-man rocket squad from Islamic Jihad. It has been largely assumed that Hamas had no interest in escalation at this time since it is waiting for Israel to release from prison the next group from the Shalit exchange. The real explanations for the decision of Islamic Jihad to attack at this time, however, are not to be found in the Gaza Strip, but rather in Tehran.
The Islamic Jihad is a very different organization than Hamas. Shakaki, its main founder was disillusioned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas. Instead he looked to Ayatollah Khomeini for inspiration and even wrote a book entitled “Khomeini: The Islamic Solution and Alternative.” The admiration for Iran became a hallmark of Islamic Jihad and even led some of its activists in the 1990?s to convert from Sunni Islam to Shiite Islam.
By 2000, while Saudi Arabia emerged as the main funder of Hamas, Islamic Jihad was backed financially by Iran, providing it with tighter control of the organization. Eventually, Iran replaced Saudi Arabia as Hamas’ main benefactor, but the regional loyalties of Hamas were also directed to the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, its supporters in the Gulf states, like Qatar, and increasingly Turkey under Erdogan. Over the last decade, Islamic Jihad emerged as the most reliable instrument that Iran could use when it wanted to destabilize the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.
Today, Tehran’s interests in promoting a military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians are multiple. First, Iran’s priority is to save Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. Television pictures of Israeli-Palestinian exchanges of fire provide a useful distraction from the YouTube images that are constantly broadcast of the systematic slaughter of Sunni Arabs in Syrian cities like Homs. Renewed Israeli-Palestinian escalation might force the Arab League to re-engage with the Palestinian issue, instead of pressuring Assad to make the reforms they are demanding.
Second, it must be remembered that the fall of the Alawite government in Syrian and its replacement with a new Sunni-dominated regime could have devastating effects on Iran’s regional position. The Sunni-population of Iraq would no longer accept the supremacy of the Iraqi Shiites that came about as a result of the Iraq War. It might re-new its insurgency, expecting the support of Sunni Syria. The same calculation might be made by the Sunni population of Lebanon, who would be less prone to accept the domination of Hezbollah in their country. The Sunnis in all these countries would not look to Iran to be their protector; they might seek the help of Turkey. In short, important Iranian interests are at stake.
Hamas is in an awkward position in this situation. It remains a movement firmly dedicated to “muqawama” (resistance), but it has reasons to prefer quiet at this time and not only because of its prisoners. It can achieve a strategic change in the Middle East, in its favor, if political processes lead to a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt and its rise to power in other Arab states. Under such circumstances, Islamic Jihad is a better instrument for Iran than Hamas, whose interests differ from those of Tehran. And as Iran senses that its power is growing with the impending U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and its march to nuclear weapons capability, it will be more prone to use proxy forces like Islamic Jihad to advance its interests and protect them from its challengers in the region.
S. Gourgi, your point's well taken.
Perhaps you’re correct in presuming that Tehran has interest in promoting the Israeli/ Palestinian conflicts. But, let’s not leave out Israeli’s efforts in helping the Kurdish separatists of Iran who are inside Iraq. Don’t forget to mention that Israel is also fermenting the separatist’s aspirations of Iranian Azerbaijanis from the Azerbaijan Republic. There are many speculations about Israel’s support for both MEK & the Royalists. Let’s not forget about the possibilities that Israel was/is helping the Jundullah separatists in the south, & the assassinations of Iranian scientists, & etc…
Tit for tat is what I call this vicious game for gaining the upper hand in competing for hegemony between Iran & Israel.
David Ruthkofee is also wrong, assuming the Israelis are trigger happy crowd. It is only the right wing neo-conservative elements of Israeli politics who support direct attack on Iran.
Despite his shortcomings on domestic policies and the lingering high unemployment at home, his foreign policy can be considered a brilliant one.
Please let me explain.
In addition to their economic difficulties, EU counties have been strangling with illegal immigrants from Islamic countries, flooding their countries - seeking either a better economic opportunities, or fled political oppressions.
Major part of China's economic development, has been due to the fact, many European, Japanese, S. Korean and US companies have been moving their production lines to china - putting many worker in their own countries out of job. A major political issue in their countries.
It is clearly evident that, the main problem with these Arab countries are, political, religious and economic.
The consensus throughout the West is, w/o support from the western countries, no revolution in Iran to remove the Mullahs could succeed - why then not use the same templed in Iran, which worked elsewhere.
Direct military intervention had been costly and unsuccessful.
Someone in the WH & the European capitals have finally figured out, a way which could address these issues, all at once. We will help the local population do the regime chance, and develop their own economies - But not do it for them.
In mere 8 months, we have seen few dictators were removed, and more (Syria & Iran) are on the way. The citizens of these counties will have tasted the benefits of freedom of expression, movement & assembly. People would have control over their own destinies. The new paradigm will certainly limit the Islamist parties, room to maneuver, and sustain their grip on the country.
With political stability & plenty of labor force in these Arab & Islamic states, more and more western international companies will be inclined to invest there, rather then in china. Moving their manufacturing jobs from China to the Middle East & Gulf countries.
With better political environment, and economic opportunities at home, less and less people from the Arab & Islamic states will have the impetus to move to Europe or US. Rather choose to seek better life in their own countries.
I'm not sure what your explanation had to do with this article at all. It seems like you just wanted to do some Muslim bashing & just used this article as an excuse!
How's Muslims going to Europe relate to this article?
If Muslims migration to Europe caused the EU economic downfall (according to you) then EU should watch its borders. What?
chicken, read the whole thing.
What I was trying to explain, to which apparently you missed, is that, with one shot, Obama & leaders of Eu are trying to solve several problems in the region.
The main objective is, by removing those Arab & Islamic dictators, and replace them with democratically elected governments, freedom of expression will permeate throughout the region - which with investment from EU & US, could improve the lives of the people in this region. With better standard of living in their own states, less & less Arab & Muslims will have reason to migrate to EU countries. Nor will they tolerate religious radicalism in their respective countries - at the same time, bring the region into more in live with the rest of the western world.
However, the “Arab Spring” has thus far only brought the Islamists to the surface & all indications are that they'll win enough votes to take control, like in Tunisia. Things don't look much better for Egypt & Libya; the leaders speak of democracy, recognition & respect for the will of the people in governing, but we heard the same rhetoric from Khomeini over 30 years ago & we all recall how that regime changed course in time. I wished that I could share your optimism in hoping that secularism along with democratic values (as we know them) will prevail in the newly elected governments, but with the Islamic figures at the realm I’m afraid I'm rather pessimistic about the immediate future of these so called young democracies of the ME & N. Africa.
Now that Iran has achieved nuclear "breakout" capability.
Israel attacks Iran, but cannot eliminate its nuclear weapons capability.
Iran strikes back immediately -- probably a soon as the Israeli planes are detected by listening posts already in western Iraq -- along with Hizbollah and Hamas -- and thousands of rockets and missiles rain onto Israel. Tel Aviv and other Israeli places -- possibly including Dimona -- suffer catastrophic damage.
Iran informs Israel that it has already assembled two nuclear-armed missiles hidden invulnerably, and that any nuclear attack on Iran will result in the nuclear obliteration of Israel.
Checkmate.
Why Israeli "settlements" would be in an article about what the west should do about the Iranian nucear threat is an example of a deep-seated left wing hostility toward Israel. There is an erroneous and rather self-destructive rigid left-wing orthodoxy that paints Israel and the west as oppressors and imperialists.
"settlements" in Jerusalem or anywhere on the west bank for that matter are not the reason for the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Palestinian/Arab rejection of a Jewiish state is the overwhelming reason. The settlement issue is a canard; it doesn't preclude any aggreement. Israel has disbanded selltments in Gaza and the Sinai and would likely do it again if there ever is an aggreement. But the Palestinians/Arabs are more interested in destroying the Jewish state than in creating a Palestinian one.
The left contributes to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse by peddling this issue as if it is substanative.
As for Obama foreign policy bona fides and how he would handle the Iranian nuclear threat: yes, Obama has some foreign policy achievements but never any big decisions like war with Iran. Bin Laden, Gaddafi and drones: easy. successfully dealing with the iranian nuclear threat: much larger order of magnitude. would he pull the trigger and attack iranian nuclear assets if he was convinced that the sanctions werent working and nuclear breakout was imminent? who knows. These kind of decisions are very difficult ones and a president will always have information and advice that contradicts itself. you can justify militarily acting or not. But there will be heavy criticism if he does act. I think he is hoping to put off a decision prior to the next election. but he may not have that luxury. I hope he makes the correct decision.
With any hot topic in the ME that needs to be address the Israeli/Palestinian issue will be raised somewhere in the discussion; and the question of settlements is an intricate part of this issue, whether we like it or not!
You are missing my point. The settlements are a distraction. They are not the reason for an impasse between the Palestinians and israelis. They are not the reason for Iran's nuclear ambitions. by constantly bringing up settlements you are giving fuel for Palestinian/Arab rejectionism a Jewish state which is overwhelmingly the primary reason for the Impasse.
Furthermore, bringing up 'the settlements' in a discussion of Obama's decision of how to deal with Iran's nuclear threat is gratuitous and betrays a rigid left-wing bias or hostility toward Israel.
I agree that bringing up the settlements in discussing Obama’s strategies in dealing with the Iranian’s N. ambition is unwarranted. I also agree that the settlements issue fuels the rejectionist sentiments of the Palestinians. But I hope you’d agree that in order to overcome the impasse Israel will need to demonstrate flexibility in compromising over some of the settlements when the time comes.
chicken salad, you (again) is missing the point.
SQUONK was making the point that, instead of cry baby over the "settlement" themselves, The Pals could negotiate over territories, which will include any improvements there - roads, settlements, etc. Such that, the Pals could end up owning fully functioning settlements w/o the Israelis, whom most likely would receive financial compensation for their lost homes, and move elsewhere in Israel.
But as SQUONK alluded. this conflict is really not about a piece of land - rather about a state of mind. Pals still live in the 7th century mentality. They follow the teaching of their holy book, and hate Jews, because the Quran said so, and want them subjugated to the Muslim - and end up with reality hitting them right in their face, time and time again.
Now they are trying to get the international community to help them to achieve their insidious objective. Fortunately, the western countries see through the Pals bogus desire for independence on the 67 borders, and calling their bluff, with their demand that, any Palestinian independence will result only through negotiations with Israel. Who owns what.
When are the Pals going to learn?
Excellent publish from specialist also it will probably be a fantastic know how to me and thanks very much for posting this useful data with us all.
British Food
When will countries try to live in peace. Why so much preparation of destructive weapons.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(39)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE