Perhaps Iran does not intend to develop a nuclear weapons capability. That’s what they’ve said, but who knows what to believe? Perhaps even if they do intend to develop such a capability, they will not succeed; that’s what some experts say, but others tell us it’s imminent.
How can we be sure? It is likely that if they do succeed, the bomb will serve “merely” as a deterrent, much as the Soviet and American bombs did during the Cold War — but that presumes a rational Iran, and the world may be forgiven for wondering whether a nation with a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as its principal public face can be depended upon to behave rationally.
And suppose it does: The Cold War was not simply a story of deterrence via mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction may well be the reason nuclear weapons were not used after 1945, but for half a century both superpowers vigorously sought to extend their influence worldwide. It requires no gift of clairvoyance to imagine what Iranian projection of power would mean in its region and beyond.
That is how those who would have us bomb Iran today, before the sun rises on a nuclear Iran, see the current situation. So, for example, we have John Bolton, erstwhile American ambassador to the United Nations. Speaking in England at the end of September, he said, “I don’t think the use of military force is an attractive option, but I would tell you I don’t know what the alternative is. Because life is about choices, I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities.”
By last week, he’d abandoned his earlier equivocation: “The choice is not between the world as it is today and the use of force. The choice is between the use of force and Iran with nuclear weapons.” As straightforward as that.
By introducing Bolton into the argument, I may be seen to be loading the deck. He is the Curtis LeMay of diplomacy, a man of curdled mind and reckless tongue. If he is for attacking Iran, then attacking Iran must be a very bad idea.
But wrong-headedness by association will not do. Better to play out the scenario: Iran gets the bomb. It does not use it for fear of massive retaliation by America or Israel or both. Nor does it hand it off to its terrorist surrogates, for much the same reason.
Instead, during the next war, two or three years from now, by which time it has a supply of adequately sophisticated missiles, it attacks downtown Tel Aviv, thereby achieving its goal of placing Israel in an unbearable quandary. If Israel responds with nuclear weapons, it invites nuclear retaliation.
No matter the provocation, Israel’s use of nuclear weapons will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. If its response is conventional, it is lost; its deterrent has proved hollow.
Grim. But note, please, that this scenario does not in fact depend on Iran having nuclear weapons. It can as readily unfold as a delayed response (if its missiles are not up to the task just yet) to an American or Israeli conventional strike against Iran, the very preemptive action that Bolton and others now urge — unless the United States is prepared for constant surveillance and repeated bombing runs for years to come.
The issue is critically important just now, since rumors of a planned attack on Iran swirl around Washington these days. There’s no point in arguing that the Bush administration would not dare risk another fiasco; it has no reputation left to lose.
Nothing to lose, everything to win: Why not, as the 2008 election draws near, take the anti-war wind out of the Democrats’ sails, and replace it with a bracing wind of pride and patriotism that a successful assault would surely occasion? The world made safe, America vindicated; exit George Bush and Dick Cheney not as failed predators but as the men who did not blink. True believers, now at last with a legacy to cherish.
The risks that would be run may seem to most of us insane: massive retaliation against Israel, hastening thereby Armageddon; totally destabilizing the world’s oil supply; placing America on the wrong side of history. But these are the men (and woman) who thought that bringing democracy to Iraq could be accomplished without breaking a sweat.
By now, we all know better. Even they know better; they are sweating. How tempting, then, the cooling towel of a successful surgical strike against Iran. Munich reversed: Now, war at any price.
The road to hell is paved with such temptations. It is a smooth road, inviting breakneck speed notwithstanding the warning signs: “Danger: Faulty Intelligence.” The diplomatic road, by contrast, is potholed with ambiguity, with tension, with tedium, with niggling negotiation, with small victories and small defeats. The mission is only sometimes accomplished, and very rarely completely.
Plus: Are the Iranians wrong to think that we, who together with England ousted their first freely elected prime minister back in 1953, have in the interim learned restraint? Are they wrong to think of us as meddlesome? Are they wrong to fear us? Might not their military preparations thus be quite rational?
Maybe diplomacy can work, maybe not. But the diplomatic road is not a cowardly detour; it is the way of responsible adults. It is a way the Bush administration has rejected and on which a disappointingly feckless Democratic Congress has failed to insist.
Shockingly, while major Jewish organizations have weighed in heavily in favor of increased sanctions, they have been lukewarm and sometimes hostile to comprehensive and intensive negotiations, silent on military assault. Oh, what fun John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt will have in their next book.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
You've successfully signed up!
Which experts tell us that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon is "imminent", pray tell? The same ones who said that Saddam exploded an H-bomb in 1998, and that in 2003 he had WMDs which could be primed to attack Cyprus in 45 minutes? And if Iran gets ONE fully woking nuclear-armed warhead by 2012, which seems to be the most pessimistic view among US intelligence professionals, what scale of threat is that against the 200-300 already ready to go which Israel pretends not to have? And if you swallow this "Iran would risk its own semi-destruction to annihilate Israel" crap, how does that square with Iran's/Persia's failure to launch a war against any other country for upwards of 200 years? And don't start chucking old speeches and mistranslations from Ahmadinejad about. He has no say over Iran's military or foreign policy, and he has explicitly and repeatedly disclaimed all such anti-israeli intentions anyway- sometimes on American television. All Ahmadinejad has done is look forward to the replacement of Zionism, which not a few Israeli Jews do too. Besides, if Iran was hell-bent on immolating itself to wipe out Israel, why would it let its president announce the fact long before it could make good on its plans? Double bluff? Sanctions are only going to drive Iran into Russia's and China's willing arms, just when the USA is facing Peak Oil and needs all the energy sources it can get. They'd be about as much use as the 1933 economic boycott which led to such headlines as "Judaea Declares War on Germany", though maybe not with the same target for the backlash. After all, more than 25,00 Jews are living unmolested in Iran, whereas in GW Bush's "liberated" Iraq barely a dozen cling on.
It's really not all that difficult to understand. It's unfortunate but not surprising that foolish leftists like Fein can't grasp the reality of the situation. It's like we live in parallel universes. We must take an honest look at the situation and confront it with realism rather than delusion. Ahmadinejad believes that he is an instrument of Allah’s will and that all infidels deserve to be placed in subservient roles in his society or killed outright. He wants to impose Sharia Law. I'm sure gays and feminists will be thrilled with that. Ahmadinejad and friends are willing to tell any lie and sign any treaty without the slightest intent of keeping it, simply to advance their cause. Muslim leaders believe that one need not truthfully negotiate with "infidels”. This is FACT. (Sorry used the "F" word again) We must be careful not to repeat what happened to the incredibly naive and unbelievably stupid Jimmy Carter with Khomeini. Carter helped bring Khomeini to power and Khomeini then ruthlessly turned his back on his allies and transformed Iran into a pariah state. This brought about the birth of terrorism which has victimized the world ever since. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter’s help. Carter should have the title "Father of the Islamic Revolution". In fact every airport security checkpoint should be named after him. When the head of the French Secret Service suggested to Carter in 1980 that Khomeini be kidnapped and then bartered for an exchange with the hostages, the imbecile said, “One cannot do that to a holy man." The guy wasn't playing with a full deck and still isn't. Carter’s belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy and nothing but diplomacy now permeates the Democratic Party. Carter was wrong and the Democrats are wrong. There are times when evil must be openly confronted and defeated. Diplomacy without strong military backup is meaningless. Pelosi and Reid do everything in their power to aide the terrorists and hurt America while at the same time cynically say they support the troops. The surge is working and incredibly Democrats are unhappy about it. Liberals are so willing to surrender to the terrorists and then blame the loss on the Republicans, and then laugh their way to the presidency in 2008 with no thought as to what that president will have to face because of their short-sightedness and cowardess. I only hope that our next president, Hillary, will have more balls than her husband when it comes to dealing with evil Islamofascists, although I am not optimistic. Do liberals really not realize that the insurgents are not disgruntled Iraqis fighting against an occupation, but terrorists from countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc., sent to create civil war and unrest? Just like we still have troops in Germany 60 years after WWII we should and will have troops in Iraq for many years to come. How you felt about going to war is irrelevant now. Now we are there. We can not just leave and let Iran take control. Democrats need to stop acting like children. You can't just pack up your toys and go home. We need to worry about what would happen if we leave prematurely. We have to think about the blood bath that would ensue if foolish people like Pelosi are successful. As for Israel, the Islamic world does not want the Palestinian crisis solved. The Islamofascists will do everything in their power to keep it from being resolved. They need to portray Israel as the oppressor in order to have someone to blame for their problems. That's why this new round of negotiations with Israel will not result in a peaceful agreement. I was shocked to hear what Bono (of U2) said in a recent interview when questioned about the Iraq war. The interviewer was trying to get him to say something negative about the war and Bush but Bono wouldn't take the bait: "I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't." "There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation." I always thought he was just another stupid liberal but he turns out to be a liberal who recognizes evil. How refreshing.
While war with Iran might not be an attractive idea, US Democrats are fighting sanctions against Iran. Obama Barak voted against the measure in the US Senate to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Iranian Hezbollah) a terrorist organization. The uncomfortable fact remains that Democrats like Fein wouldnt mind seein a nuclear Iran as a deterrant to the US, just like the Rosenbergs didnt like seeing the US being the only nuclear power and thus helped the Soviet Union. Fein, Walt and Mearsheimer are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. Perhaps they should come clear with their dual loyalties and register as representatives of Iran
Should Jewish individuals and organizaitons base their opinions on what Mearsheimer and Walt might think? Jewish individuals and groups should be free to base thier opinions on what they think is right and will work. You may disagree with many of them, but don't blame for Mearsheimer and Walt.
How would David Nilsson know what US intelligence agents are predicting? If he has credible sources, he is leaking them. If he doesnt have credible sources, he is making them up. Hitler made his intentions clear in Mein Kampf, because he knew that the David Nilssons of the 1930s would defend him. Ahmadinejad has his columns of Nilssons along too, who believe that the death of another 6 million Jews would perfect the world
I think that if Iran gets its nuke, drops it on Tel-Aviv, kills between 200 and 400 thousand Jews and effectively ends the Jewish state, Mearsheimer and Walt will have much bigger fun, although they might not write about it. Stop tinkering with my life, you mindless liberal idiots. I can't stand those American Jews from the left field, who are peppering us with their unsolicited advice from safe distance. Come to Israel, vote here, pay taxes here, suffer the consequences of the policies you advocate - HERE. Otherwise, shut up.
The absurdity of invading Iraq and the staggering incompetence displayed by Bush & Co is really one for the history books. It is ironic that Bush removed the only obstacle to a local Iranian hegemony, namely Saddam Hussein who was just the right kind of mad-dog dictator who could squelch local opposition and keep the Iranians at bay at the same time. Bush père understood this but then realism ended, fantasy took over, and just look where we are now. It's hard even to try to fathom Bush's Folly. What happened to craft and cunning in diplomacy? The smart thing to do would have been to sicc Iraq and Iran on one another, not that it would have been very difficult as they recently fought a 10-year long war. Divide et impera is as valid now as it ever was. The cause for all this misery is the jingoistic manner in which 9/11 was handled. The right-wing with its one-track mind immediately jumped on the patriotism wagon and roused the furies of war. And then the glands replaced the brain. By the time Iraq came around, the fear of not being seen as sufficiently patriotic squelched any public objections and Bush, the War President, sent his forces into battle with the flags flying and the car magnets proclaiming "Support Our Troops." In reality, the events of 9/11, as horrific as they were, presented no credible threat to the power and wealth of the United States. It was a nasty pinprick, nationally speaking, but in no way was our might impacted by the cunning assassination plot hatched by the 19 hijackers. If our government had been led by intelligent statesmen then we could have avoided the rank idiocy that has followed. But we had Bush.