SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why Won’t Obama Speak Frankly About Iran?

POLITICS FEBRUARY 28, 2012

Why Won’t Obama Speak Frankly About Iran?

BY JEFFREY HERF

The world is nearing the point where it is going to have to make some difficult decisions about how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon—among them, a decision about whether to use military force. Given Iran’s deep hostility to the United States and Israel, as well as its history of sponsoring terrorism, the importance of denying Iran a nuclear weapon cannot be overstated.

But, while President Obama says he believes Iran must be denied the bomb, his rhetoric on the subject has been curiously circumscribed. He has not made a major speech explaining to the American and global public why an Iranian nuclear bomb would be a threat to the United States or to the countries of the Middle East. He has not used his bully pulpit to detail the content of Iran’s genocidal threats to Israel. He has not explained why an Iranian bomb would doom his hopes for preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries. Even as he says things like “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” he has not explained to the country why a policy of containment and deterrence—which worked in the case of the Soviet Union—is deeply problematic in the case of Iran.

Consider his comments about Iran during his recent State of the Union:

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.

Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal.

But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

First, it is not true that the world “stands as one” regarding stopping Iran’s progress towards the bomb. For instance, while China supports some form of economic sanctions, it also continues to buy a great deal of oil from the country. So while the world may “stand as one” in wishing that Iran does not get the bomb, there is no unified position on how to translate this wish into reality.

Second, Obama asserts his determination to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and says he “will take no options off the table.” When a President speaks about the possibility of using military force in a preemptive strike to prevent another country from attaining nuclear weapons—for this is what taking no options off the table means—norms of democratic legitimacy require that he explain in that moment to that huge audience why he would even consider such a thing. Yet Obama said nothing about why the military option must remain on the table. His refusal to do so raises doubts about how serious he is.

Third, these doubts are enhanced by the next sentence regarding the possibility of a peaceful resolution of the issue. Yes, of course, that would be preferable; but the President does not explain why he thinks such a course is likely.

Finally, the entire passage, with its insistence that the world is united and that “the regime is more isolated than ever before,” makes it sound as if our policy toward Iran is working—when it manifestly is not. As far as we know, and now also in the view of recent reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran continues its march toward nuclear weapons, despite the world’s diplomatic and economic efforts to prevent it from doing so.

There is so much more the President might have said—both in his State of the Union and on other occasions. He might have reminded his audience of the Iranian regime’s ruthless repression of democracy at home, its support for terrorism abroad, and the very specific, oft-repeated incitement to mass murder of Jews that come from the speeches of both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. He might have argued for either leader to be indicted under the incitement clause of the U.N. Genocide Convention. And he might have detailed the ways in which Hezbollah will almost certainly be emboldened by its patron’s nuclear status.

He might also have said that, if Iran goes nuclear, there will likely be an arms race in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and other countries looking to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. He might have explained that, once Iran has the bomb, other small or medium sized countries around the world could well conclude there is little price to be paid for developing nuclear weapons. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be a dead letter.

The President says he wants to take no options off the table. But for three years he has taken the option of his own eloquence off the table. It is long overdue that he put it in play. The reason to do this is not because Iran’s leaders will necessarily respond to such tough language. They have repeatedly made clear that they do not care what the United States says about them. No, the real reason is that part of the role of a U.S. president is to speak frankly and without illusions about the most difficult challenges facing our country and our allies, namely an Iran in possession of nuclear weapons—and to be clear with Americans about the realistic options for dealing with these challenges.

Jeffrey Herf is a professor of history at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is the author, most recently, of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 101 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

101 comments

TNR beating the war drums again. The reason why Obama's rhetoric is circumscribe is rather obvious. He is not prepared to use military force at this time, and all the things that Herf demands that Obama say would both make it that much more certain that Iran will not cooperate and make the quick use of force politically necessary. Once the saber is drawn, there is not choice but to use it. Herf wants the saber drawn. There is plenty of reason for ambiguity in public diplomacy and less there is a firm commitment to particular course of action and it is time to let friend and foe know just what it is. Herf wants to leap over the question whether we are well-served by the use of force and by the use of force at this time and simply make it inevitable. If and when the decision to use force is made, there will be time for the speech Herf longs to hear. I found this little piece especially obnoxious: "When a President speaks about the possibility of using military force in a preemptive strike to prevent another country from attaining nuclear weapons—for this is what taking no options off the table means—norms of democratic legitimacy require that he explain in that moment to that huge audience why he would even consider such a thing." Where on earth did the norm of "in that moment to that huge audience" come from? I somehow have missed that particular norm of democratic legitimacy. We are owed the explanation when the decision is to be made. What is to be said before hand is a matter of sober judgment that must consider democratic legitimacy, the effect on other actors, and the risk of backing oneself into a corner. Herf wants us in that corner now and invents this norm of democratic legitimacy to try and put us there. I hope Obama is paying no attention to this sort of thing. We have had quite enough of right-wing cowboys who have no sense that war is fraught with a multitude of possibilities for loss and failure and should only be undertaken when there is no alternative.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry for all the typos. It is late.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the right, war is always to be undertaken at the first opportunity. They consider this evidence of their steely-eyed realism, never mind how often the use of military force goes awry. They are in consequence forever accusing Democratic presidents of being pusillanimous for choosing to go to war at the last opportunity rather than the first. Herf writes in this great and feckless tradition.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 12:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't know, or perhaps recall, that Herf is a self-declared "liberal hawk" he supported the war in Iraq, but it was an easy guess. Doesn't seemed to have learned a thing from the experience. Of course, he wasn't there. See this: ____________________________ Hawks in the rain August 22, 2010 Like the proverbial poor, well-meaning warmongers we have always with us. Salon’s Jordan Smith reminds us, in a useful mini-essay, that the spirit of bloody do-gooderism never dies away. Behold these quotes: “A lot of liberals are still caught in habits of thinking that were formed during Vietnam,” says [Jeffrey] Herf, a historian who supported the Iraq war. “Guys like me and Paul [Berman], Leon Wieseltier and Marty Peretz — we have moved on.” Now here’s a quote from the same guy, later on in the essay: “If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, we will have a crossed a threshold,” Herf says. The Persian nation will have proved to the world you can thumb your nose at the U.S. and the U.N. and the international community and succeed, he says. “As a historian of Nazi Germany, I’ve learned that when leaders say lunatic things, they mean them.” In other words, he’s one of those guys still caught in habits of thinking that were formed by World War II, and hasn’t moved on. The trick is to pick the right war, you see. http://thecivicspirit.wordpress.com/

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 12:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama were to give a truly frank speech about Iran & the bomb--that is if he were to talk about reality as opposed to saying white idealistic hawks like Herf--he would admit that neither the USA nor NATO nor Israel possesses either the military capability to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The only conceivable way to achieve this end militarily would be to invade Iran and occupy the country indefinitely. The will for such a war does not exist in the west, and the capability does not exist in Israel. Given such limitations--of which Obama is well aware and of which Herf should be aware but isn't--the president is well served to keep his mouth shut on the subject.

- AaronW

February 28, 2012 at 1:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama were to give a truly frank speech about Iran & the bomb--that is if he were to talk about reality as opposed to saying whatidealistic hawks like Herf want him to say--he would admit that neither the USA nor NATO nor Israel possesses the military capability to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The only conceivable way to achieve this end militarily would be to invade Iran and occupy the country indefinitely. The will for such a war does not exist in the west, and the capability does not exist in Israel. Given such limitations--of which Obama is well aware and of which Herf should be aware but isn't--the president is well served to keep his mouth shut on the subject.

- AaronW

February 28, 2012 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why Won’t Obama Speak Frankly About Iran?" Because he's president, and not a media pundit or an academic?

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 1:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We will soon find out, before the November election, whether Obama is just another Jimmy Carter who recklessly hands yet another victory to the Ayatollahs.

- amidut

February 28, 2012 at 7:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, it is NOT always the job of the US President to speak frankly about national security issues. Often, in fact, it is the job of the US President to speak opaquely, at least in his public utterances, about national security issues. The President should be honest, however, if he is going to commit the country, it's manpower, resources and prestige to another long war in the Middle East. That's something that didn't happen last time, though I don't recall TNR objecting all that much.

- DC Spence

February 28, 2012 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We must not let Israel and it's American friends lead us into another war. Let Iran get the bomb and know that if a nuclear weapon is used anywhere in the world, by anybody they will be immediately suspected and destroyed.

- paskunac

February 28, 2012 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Spence, we're not talking about a long war in the Middle East for US ground forces. We're talking about allowing Israel to defend itself and, as Professor Herf says, providing moral justification for it. Paskunac would kick the can down the road. He wants us to make threats that we won't have the intention or stomach (or brutality) to follow through.

- amidut

February 28, 2012 at 7:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rather than another polemic, how about a careful analysis of the facts, the facts in the IAEA report and the facts in the intelligence agencies' reports (the latter indicating there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb). Herf and others ginning up for war with Iran have no credibility, which is unfortunate, but the result of ginning up for war with Iraq based on unproven claims of WMD that turned out to be spurious. Skeptics of the war with Iraq expressed in this magazine the concern that the next time, when military action was actually warranted, the US would not heed those calling for action because they would have lost credibility. Publishing a polemic rather than a careful analysis will not restore that lost credibility.

- rayward

February 28, 2012 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is an interesting point buried in this debate. Those who insist, whether overtly like Peretz or covertly like Herf (under the guise of demanding adherence to some invented democratic norm), that we must now bomb Iran, help Israel bomb Iran, or allow Israel to bomb Iran recognize that the risks of doing so if Iran had The Bomb would be too great. Perhaps Iran has figured this out too. We, of course, like to think that we are not an enemy of Iran, that there is no reason for Iran to think it has enemies. But has Iran ever deposed an American head of state and facilitated his assassination as we did there? Has Iran ever installed in America a regime to its liking, a police state whose security police were, like SAVAK, known for their singular viciousness? Did we not assist Iraq in making war on Iran, after the unprovoked invasion of Iran by Iraq? The same bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crowd is always talking about regime change in Iran by force of arms. Do Iranians talk about regime change in America by force of arms? Might not Iranians, from their point of view, have good reason to believe they have real enemies? We Americans, especially the bellicose right, are completely oblivious to the trail of loss and destruction we leave around the world and the acts of ours that are murderous and inevitably provoke a desire for revenge. We define ourselves as righteous and expect everyone else to think so too, even when we are killing them. Given the reasons for Iran to want a nuclear deterrent, other than the almost absurd possibility that it would try to destroy Israel and itself be completely obliterated, it seems likely that Aaron is right. Unless we are prepared to occupy Iran, or at the least conduct a full-scale war of regime change, bombing will only assure that Iran does eventually obtain nuclear weapons. Wouldn't you in their shoes, confronted with an enemy like the US and a nuclear armed Israel that proudly bills itself as America's closest ally? I also note that while the right gets very exercised about what Iran might do to Israel with its power, it is ever blithe about what Israel does in fact do to the Arabs, in the present, with its power. Israel defies a multitude of UNSC resolutions with impunity because it is backed and sheltered from the consequences by the US. Does this not bring the entire regime of international law that we claim to support, and that we cite as the reason why Iran must concede, into disrepute? Would other nations be incorrect in perceiving that international law, as enforced by us, is not a regime upon which they can rely for safety but nothing more than another tool of American power and control, to be resisted by the means available to them? Not only are Americans oblivious to our own dark deeds, we are oblivious to the ways in which our behavior would be perceived by perfectly rational people who do not share our culture and hence our desire for "our way of life" to be theirs. So, let's bomb someone else, today, or soon. It's been a while.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nothing is stopping Israel from attacking Iran. The notion that the US government has the power to compel Israel to refrain from doing something it really wants to do is absurd. The Israeli government does what it wants, the US Congress applauds whatever that is -- particularly if the Israeli government is Likud -- and the US President grits his teeth and accepts the inevitable. What Professor Herf and those like him really want is something different. They don't want Israel to attack Iran and they certainly don't want Israel to be given permission to attack Iran. [They know full well Israel doesn't need permission and they'd be horrified at the notion that it should have to ask for it.] No, they want the US to attack Iran for Israel. If Israel wanted to attack Iran they'd have done so by now. Nothing can stop them. They can attack Iran any time they want, though they probably cannot achieve the goals they want by doing so. This isn't about Israel attacking Iran and never was. This is about the US performing the role it exists to play -- International Enforcer for G-d's Chosen People. Everyone knows this. Some don't have the guts to admit it.

- DC Spence

February 28, 2012 at 8:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This isn't one of Prof. Herf's finest essays. I don't agree that he is "beating the drums of war," but he is certainly beating the anti-Obama drum. Obama's comment in his State of the Union speech that "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." was a pretty strong warning to Iran. Obama assumes that the audience present during the speech knew why the US would not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. If you add to his statement the fact that we sent a number of destroyers into the Persian gulf and are beefing up our military defenses there (this was reported in the Wall Street Journal) then it's obvious that Obama has put the Iranian government on notice that he meant what he said. Polls have shown that most Americans support a policy of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. One can then assume that most of us know why Iran is a danger to the region and the world. Historically US Presidents spell out why we need to take action against a country right before we that action is implemented. Herf like many of us would like to see some action taken against Iran, and when Obama is ready to do I am sure he will make the kind of speech Herf would have him deliver.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 9:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DC Spence is absolutely correct.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are many reasons to take action against Iran and some to be cautious. However, the idea that no action should be taken because it might fail and then Iran would get the bomb anyway and respond more belligerently if such action is taken is a recipe for giving in to blackmail. Once we decide to take action it won't be a single strike or campaign. It will mean ongoing military action until Iran gives up the idea of building nuclear weapons. From my perspective the best way to insure that is to work for regime change. Many Iranians would support such an effort on out part. In any case, the road to regime change in Teheran will run through Damascus.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is too much mind reading in DC Spence's comment.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe the Iranians will throw flowers at our feet when we get to Tehran, by way of Damascus of course. Does anyone really believe that Iran will crumble even if Syria were magically transformed into the 51st state of the Union, with strip malls, parking lots, and Fox News? I assume that those who think an endless campaign of American-sponsored regime change in the Moslem world is the path to American security would not think it at all amiss if the Moslem world began to think that violent regime change in America is the path to their security.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Once we decide to take action it won't be a single strike or campaign. It will mean ongoing military action until Iran gives up the idea of building nuclear weapons." The conventional name for this is "war." Perhaps it is the reason why Obama does not want to back himself and us into a corner. It would mean war, the very thing that Herf so clearly desires, drums or no drums.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think DC spence is reading minds. He's reading the words on the page and drawing the obvious inferences.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So far, these are excellent comments. Human brains finished evolving by the Neolithic (and earlier). Our brains are not particularly suited for a world where we manage spectacular numbers of people, intricate technologies and economies, and above all, weapons that can kill thousands or millions of people at a distance. It is amazing that we have not yet destroyed ourselves as a species. 1) The main thing I ask of a President is that he not destroy the world. 2) Is there way to make empathy, self-restraint, common sense, and wisdom an infectious disease and start an epidemic that spreads to Iran? Keep up the excellent comments! I am glad I am a subscriber. Tell me when I am too demented to post any more!

- skahn

February 28, 2012 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Realistic options," yes, of course. So just what "realistic options" did you have in mind? I have had it up to here with pundits who yell and scream about how we cannot permit Iran to get nukes, but get oddly quiet when asked what, exactly, we should do to stop them. If you think the United States should attack Iran, have the balls to say so. I don't think you'll find many backers considering the mess we got into with Iraq, but feel free to make your pitch. If you aren't willing to make that pitch, however, then siddown and shaddup. Obama's Iran strategy may not be the ideal strategy (though I haven't seen a better), and it may not work, but at least he's got one and he's willing to implement it.

- Dausuul

February 28, 2012 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The main thing I ask of a President is that he not destroy the world." It is both sad and terrifying that this is something we actually have to consider when looking at the current crop of candidates.

- Dausuul

February 28, 2012 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The world is nearing the point" Who the fuck says? Does Prof. Herf have access to secret, vital intelligence as to the status of the Iranian bomb? Or is he going to quote unnamed, anonymous sources, show us pictures of ice cream parlors and claim they are enrichment facilities. Did this jackass learn nothing from Iraq and the WMD debacle? Iran is claiming it has no intention of building a bomb. If they did build a prototype they would have to test fire one. That would be all the evidence the world needs that Iran is lying and therefore the US (and Israel) would then have a legitimate reason to act. And don't give me any bullshit about there have a bomb would be a deterrent. Deterrent against our stealth bombers? Against targeted strikes against their leadership? But where is the evidence we are anywhere near this? I have been hearing that Iran is a year or two away from having a bomb for 10 years now. The Iranian economy is in meltdown and demographics are working against the leadership as they have nowhere enough jobs to provide for the millions of young. Eventually Iran is going to have to back the hell down or face revolution. They might still do nuclear research and even build a prototype, I don't see them test firing it. Time is on our side. But Herf wants to save the Iranian regime by his sheer idiotic folly.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dausuul: If you think the United States should attack Iran, have the balls to say so. I don't think you'll find many backers considering the mess we got into with Iraq, but feel free to make your pitch. Amen to this. I am a hawk. I supported the war in Libya, I even supported the Iraq war (believe it or not I think it was only in the execution that we so screwed it up) It seems to me the best option is to tell Iran if you test fire a nuke, be prepared for Israel to rain some fire on your ass. We will then be dragged into it, willingly or not, and you saw what happened to Gadhafi, Hussein, Bin Laden. You can be damn sure the Chinese and Russians would accept this and will pressure Iran not to bring the whole house down on the world economy. I don't give a rats ass if Iran continues research. And if the Iranians are that crazy, at least we better be 100% sure that they have a working bomb. And a working bomb ain't easy. North Korea's test bombs were practically duds as far as nukes go. And NK has only done a couple because building a nuclear bomb is effing hard HERF!

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As to the tactical situation, as opposed to the politics and rhetoric, I think blackton at 11:07 is about as close to the mark as anything else I have read. The biggest problem we may have may be that Bush ramped up the rhetoric early (without any plan for how to achieve the objective) and already had us in something of a corner before Obama took office. For years now, there has been much less room for maneuver than a president should maintain for himself and for a successor unless the decision as to the definitive course is already a done deal, as clearly it was not. For the usual warmongers, and I think it fair to count Jeffrey Herf among them, there has only ever been one course of action, war with Iran, for all the regime change, perpetual war with the Moslem world reasons that the right holds dear. The only question for them has been how quickly we can be maneuvered into starting one. Hence, the only interest of Herf is to ramp up the rhetoric as soon as possible to the point where war becomes almost inevitable.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps Jeffrey Herf remembers how FDR slowly prepared Americans, who were very isolationist after being dragged into WW1, for the reasons why the USA was helping the UK in their valiant decision to keep fighting Hitler's Germany. I do not know what FDR said in public between the 1939 invasion of Poland and Dec. 7, 1941, but he did use his bully pulpit. I would be happy if Obama just once stopped making the threat of a nuclear Iran solely about Israel. Said something about the threat to the Sunni oil states, and mention the US treaties with them. Most Americans have no idea that we have made promises to provide our nuclear umbrella to many nations. Most Americans have no idea that the USA has a 200+ year commitment to free navigation, which is why we have the Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, and always have at least one carrier group deployed near the Straits of Hormuz. This would be a good time for Obama to take a vacation from campaigning, and do some actual governing with leadership.

- K2K

February 28, 2012 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see any quotes in Spence's comment here. It's all "what he is really saying" kind of stuff. It amounts to 'tea leaf reading.' "What Professor Herf and those like him really want is something different. They don't want Israel to attack Iran and they certainly don't want Israel to be given permission to attack Iran. [They know full well Israel doesn't need permission and they'd be horrified at the notion that it should have to ask for it.] No, they want the US to attack Iran for Israel."

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi. Recommended this blog as example of civility . He posted 10 out of 27 comments. paskunac. From pacifist to extreme militaristic. Passive aggressive. In the meantime Israel was blown out. Reminds me of Walter Mitty , Danny Kaye's movie. The Boot tells him once they kill you the FBI will redouble their efforts. Dany Kaye says that is very reassuring. K2K well said. roi question for you about illegality of occupation and such. Some 70 years have passed since WWII ended. Why do we still have sizable troops in Germany and Japan. Why we don't have troops in Italy and Spain.? They were allies of the fascist axis, Italy active Mussolini , Spain Francisco Franco kind of silent. Why do we have so many military basis all over the world? I am sounding like Ron Paul, couldn't we use the money to solve the unemployment nightmare ( just for those that have no jobs) Why why why.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi historical facts elude you, sorry to say. Wars were started by Democrats, and stopped by Republicans excluding George W Iraq and Afghanistan. WWII inevitable FDR. Korean War, Truman starts , Eisenhower ends. Vietnam War, JFK LBJ start, Richard Nixon ends. Kosovo, Bill Clinton starts, ends. Libya, Obama Europeans start end. This was like shooting fish in a barrel. Do not disappoint me any more. I posted you were honest, although biased posting truths that fit your agenda. Too bad your anti Israel stances do not fit my agenda. How inevitable were these wars?

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Had FDR been bluntly honest with the American people about everything the country might face, we likely would never have had the draft, never have prepared even marginally for the war, and never been in it, with the outcome very uncertain. The distinction of a master politician is to understand how much to say when. FDR was a genius; Obama can be pretty good and is learning. Jeffrey Herf? Puh-leese. All he wants is a war with Iran as soon as one can be started, and he will spare no effort to get us there.

- roidubouloi

February 28, 2012 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The distinction of a master politician is to understand how much to say when." I agree and suggested as much above. I think and the evidence suggests that Obama is preparing us for a confrontation with Iran.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime: all your other comments aside, in fact we do have troops in both Spain and Italy. We have substantial US Navy forces at Rota, Spain and both the Army and Air Force have bases in Italy. But the larger number of troops stationed in Germany have nothing to do with which country was on what side of the war... NATO wanted the lion's share of troops to be there as a speed bump when the Soviets came crashing through the Fulda gap. Ditto Japan. Do we STILL need all of them there? Well that's an argument for another time I suppose.

- Tristan

February 28, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime: "Wars were started by Democrats" Funny, I thought Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Empire of Japan.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you Tristan. The USA also has a substantial presence in Italy, especially in Naples, which is why we do not need carrier groups based in the Mediterranean. http://www.cnic.navy.mil/europe/ Obama really needs a few lessons in how to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency. I continue to maintain that he lost a significant opportunity when the twitterers of Tahrir Square conned the 24/7 news cycle. Why Obama decided to NOT use that key moment to teach the world that one core hallmark of democracy is the peaceful transfer of power is a question that may someday merit a book. Going along with protesting crowds was a failure of leadership with genuine consequences. I give Obama a pass for being president during a major turning point in global history - presiding over an uncertain transition from the failure of the post-WW2 world order - but he still could remember to mention why western democracy works better than totalitarianism...no wonder AmericansElect has Jon Stewart as a prospective candidate.

- K2K

February 28, 2012 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well. First, the president as Commander in Chief should keep his mouth shut about tactics and strategy, otherwise why not simply publish attack plans on the Internet? That's point A. Point B is more to the point, what exactly are we supposed to do militarily? And this goes double for Israel. Kudos for President Obama for remaining ambiguous on the subject of Iran. There is really nothing we can do militarily to stop Iran short of a full-on occupation of a country far larger than Iraq, which we spectacularly bungled. What a catastrophe; and if Israel attacks, her people and nation and its accomplishments will be tragically decimated in my opinion. In other words, "Israel's right to self-defense" would be nothing more than suicide if a preemptive war is launched against Iran. Anyway, diplomacy, sanctions, economic inducements, so forth, are more likely to persuade Iran that the world isn't out to get them than a military attack, which will certainly prove the point. Also, whereas the government of Iran may well be crazy, the people are diverse, the nation is in a state of flux, and could well become an ally and a friend, given time. Finally, Iran is strategic regarding global oil resources. Anybody want a real global Depression worse than the 1930's? Start a war.

- Sophia

February 28, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime, Truman started the Korean War? I thought it was Kim Il-Sung invading South Korea. And JFK and LBJ didn't "start" the Vietnam War -- the Viet Cong insurgency against the Republic of South Vietnam was going on since 1957 or so and Eisenhower already committed US military advisers to South Vietnam in 1959. JFK increased the number of advisers and LBJ comitted US combat troops in defense of South Vietnam against the VC and the North Vietnamese, but these moves came after the war was already more than four years old. Nixon did end US combat involvement in the war in 1973, but American advisers remained in South Vietnam through the end of Nixon's term up until the US Congress ceased to provide military aid to South Vietnam in early 1975 during Ford's Presidency. This officially "ended" US involvement in Vietnam, a few months before the war itself was ended by a North Vietnamese victory. I realize that facts are not your friends, but please try to get acquainted with them before you post.

- wildboy

February 28, 2012 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's another point. Israel is becoming a proxy for Jews around the world. Already we are attacked for "controlling America." Clearly I support Israel's existence and abhor the threats and bigotry against the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. However, if a far right wing Israeli government jeopardizes both my country (America) and the people of Israel, the Jewish people around the world, I want no part of it. Self defense this isn't. It's nuts. Israel, use the schmekelkes not the warplanes.

- Sophia

February 28, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Given Iran’s deep hostility to the United States and Israel, as well as its history of sponsoring terrorism, the importance of denying Iran a nuclear weapon cannot be overstated." Of course it can be overstated... The fact that one think it can't is sort of scary!

- CAinDC

February 28, 2012 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh boy I was corrected. Thus who coined the phrase democrats start wars and republicans stop them. Maybe was a republican. Yes WWII was a response to Japanese attacks Pearl Harbor. Then declaring war against Germany. But at present why all those bases around the world. Military industrial complex (Eisenhower ) With all and all . Patton said, American's love to fight and love to win. I lived in Mexico many years. The Mexicans received their share of USA interventions. Porfirio Diaz dictator(1880, 1910) used to say : so far from God, so close to the USA. America helped Benito Juarez to kick the French and Maximiliano from Mexico. But Lopez de Santa Ana lost more than half of Mexico to USA. Anyhow the revenge is here, 20 million Hispanics, 10 million illegals Mexicans.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia demonization of Israel, demonization of Netanyauh , canard of far right wing demonization is the false creation of self hatred Jews anti Israel new York times. These people NYT and leftist neo fascists are the enemies of America. Condoning Muslims killing Muslims, condoning terrorist Iran. Besides Israel is not a golden coin to be liked by everybody. Distorted self hatred Jews are not needed.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"However, if a far right wing Israeli government jeopardizes both my country (America) and the people of Israel, the Jewish people around the world, I want no part of it. Self defense this isn't. It's nuts." It is as much self defense for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities as it was for Israel to attack Nasser's war machine in 1967, and to liquidate the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities in 1981 and 2009. How does Israel acting to prevent an existential threat going to jeopardize America? Won't it be Iran's crazy mullahs who will be responsible for jeopardizing America? How come it is now Israel's fault that there is an insane regime in Iran vowing to wipe it off the face of the earth? Any wonder the Iranians feel they are winning in this game? 6 million Jews in Israel stand to be crippled and harmed by even a very small nuke on Tel Aviv and Sophia is worried about Israel's "far right wing Israeli government " jeopardizing the comfortable life of Americans.

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I say you are anti Israel, fine who needs you. Good riddance. Leftist neo fascists. In my wallet foi the self hatred Jews. Here is JJ Goldberg on the anti Israel gangs hard at work. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-28/anti-israel-one-state-fix-airs-at-harvard-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is straw-man nonsense. Nobody here -- well, almost nobody -- is proposing a one-state solution for the I/P conflict.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 Very well said. It appears that naive Sophia JAP (Jewish American Princess) becomes disoriented. Nothing personal. You are free to have your opinion. Me too. This is America a blessed free country. God Bless.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad It is an example of naives Being taking advantage by anti Israel extremists.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe so, Jaime, but it's not a very pertinent example because nobody around here is advocating for the goal Goldberg condemns. What's the point in slapdash posting of quasi-irrelevant links that are meant to refute an argument that nobody is making? Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you is against Israel, or something?

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime: Sophia is not a JAP by any means. You can't just insult away anybody who says something you don't like. You can, of course, but then you will not be taken seriously. So think about it.

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LOL JAP? Thanks Noga! Anyway, I think my concerns are rational. Attacking Iran guarantees an attack on Israel. On the other hand, attempting to reach accords through other means, peacefully if possible, at least holds out the possibility of avoiding an assault. Believe me, I don't think Netanyahu is wrong to be concerned. Anybody with a history book should be concerned. However, a self-fulfilling prophecy should be avoided at all costs. There are too many end-timers around who would love to see Israel ravaged. I'm not one of them.

- Sophia

February 28, 2012 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad I am concerned about the demonization of Israel by the anti Israel gang that includes self hatred Jews. This unjust dishonest demonization has to be confronted. It has gotten out of hand. That meeting in Harvard organized by virulent anti Israel haters, disguised as a rational discussion taking advantage of young naive people is more than a disgrace. When at the same time Iran armed to their teeth are in the quest to destroy Israel get a free pass by the leftist neofascists, now blaming Israel trying to draw the USA into war. This is hugely misleading. That what it is all about.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia "LOL JAP?" And I thought you liked his "Yiddish."

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that one can very justifiably condemn the one-state solution as covertly antisemitic, Jaime, but as a follow-up I'd say politely to anyone that does so that the best alternative is to get real serious about the two-state solution and stop demonizing President Obama who is putting this country's security on the line to help Israel. Unless of course any criticism of the current Israeli government is, you know, Jew-hatred.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga, good for you. even when I disagree with you you know I luv ya. I read you, I don't read chuch, his grammar and bad spelling is just too tedious to bear. Israel will do what it feels is absolutely necessary for their survival, since they have not dropped a ton of bombs on Iran I have a tendency to believe they themselves feel the situation does not warrant it.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad you are good at correcting. But you are silly to say the least. Who is demonizing Obama. And what's wrong with you that BHO is putting this country security on the line to help Israel . These are the most idiotic statements I ever heard. It is incredible. You have dropped in level to inferior arnon1, the turret syndrome patient. And another cretin blackton got his malicious insult promptly just to state the obvious. To tell you the truth noga1, these specimens are so inferior that makes watching you and roidubouloi confrontations a pleasure. Too bad roi is so anti Israel. These provides a decision for me to skip ironyni, arnon inferior and blacky altogether, they are not worth wasting my time.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And what's wrong with you that BHO is putting this country['s] security on the line to help Israel." You know, I've always wondered what IS wrong with me! Thanks, Jaime!

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good to see Sophia the JAP stop demonizing Netanyahu. Although arnon1 got his inferiority into the arena, his turret syndrome doesn't help either, he is a schlemiel and his inferiority disqualifies him to be promoted to schmuck, he has to live with his failings.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... stop demonizing President Obama who is putting this country's security on the line to help Israel." Looks to me, ironyroad, that you would not find roi's statement about Israel throwing the US under the bus as too absurd. Well, what do you know.

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Israel will do what it feels is absolutely necessary for their survival, since they have not dropped a ton of bombs on Iran I have a tendency to believe they themselves feel the situation does not warrant it." Blackton, I love you, too. No caveats:) Israel's government is a responsible government. If the estimates do not warrant an attack, an attack will not be attempted. Why would Israel wish to pick a fight with Iran? What's Iran to do with Israel, anyway? Seems to me that this simple truth somehow gets lost in the torrent of abuse that is being unleashed upon Netanyahu, a very convenient target.

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyni you are welcome . Stick to what you do best, correcting grammar. You are a failure understanding logic. Ha Obama jeopardizing Americas security by being friendly to Israel and apologetic to Iran and the Muslims. This qualifies to the most idiotic statement of the month, the year, the decade. And only belongs to ironyni. You should patent this idea, it is unique. Maybe blaktoniny can pith in, that is if he understood my grammar. You can not deny that God Was charitable by creating these idiots. Oy bei and they are Yidish. You see not all of us can be smart, add Arnon inferior to the bunch . What a bunch. TNR good balancing act.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 7:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

beautiful marriage noga1 smart, blackton stupid. And they love each other, I kid you not. And is rudubouloi to be jealous.? Menage a troi . Pro Israel, stupid, anti Israel. One two three.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Well, what do you know." Well, I don't know what you know, Noga. But I know what I know (most of the time). And I know that there's a somewhat evasive way of dealing with arguments that consists of saying in ominous tones that someone's argument is like someone else's argument. I like to think that, for the greater part, my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. And mostly fall, perhaps? One must live with that.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 7:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... stop demonizing President Obama who is putting this country's security on the line to help Israel." Show me where Obama is demonized and show me where he "is putting this country's security on the line to help Israel." Aren't you a little bit carried away? How can America's security be on the line by Israel doing what is necessary for its defence? Do you expect Israelis to sacrifice their life, there future, their children, their country, so that Americans can continue to drive SUV's with cheap fuel??

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"beautiful marriage noga1 smart, blackton stupid. And they love each other, I kid you not. " Jaime, you have a lady's imagination, which you share with Miss Caroline Bingley. " [Darcy].. I have been meditating on the very great pleasure which a pair of fine eyes in the face of a pretty woman can bestow.'' Miss Bingley immediately fixed her eyes on his face, and desired he would tell her what lady had the credit of inspiring such reflections. Mr. Darcy replied with great intrepidity, ``Miss Elizabeth Bennet.'' ``Miss Elizabeth Bennet!'' repeated Miss Bingley. ``I am all astonishment. How long has she been such a favourite? -- and pray when am I to wish you joy?'' ``That is exactly the question which I expected you to ask. A lady's imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony, in a moment. I knew you would be wishing me joy.'' :)

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 7:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 You are a peaceful pleasure. I am too neurotic. You are a lovely lady. My apologies to Sophia. But demonizing of Israel, Nethanyauh, MP drives me up the wall I take it on you folks because I can not get to those that deserve it like the new York times and such.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime, "beautiful marriage noga1 smart, blackton stupid." To Irony " You have dropped in level to inferior arnon1, the turret syndrome patient. And another cretin blackton got his malicious insult promptly just to state the obvious." Jaime is an addict. He is addicted to insulting people as he is to he toy the I-Pad. Jaime you wish you were one tenth as smart as Irony or Arnon or Basman and Blackton. Is there anyone here you haven't insulted yet. You are the worse news ever to hit these forums. You make some of the craziest people who used to post here sane. You wish you had "Tourette's Syndrome" which can be treated, what you have is a terminal alter kaker mental disease. Do yourself a favor and stop posting here.

- nr106646

February 28, 2012 at 8:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's obvious that Chuchu is Non compos mentis. He doesn't know what he saying or why. Once he calls you a name he will forever identify you with that epithet. If Chuch is his real name I feel sorry for his family. He is disgracing his family name. I hope some family member takes him off line for their sake as well as his.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nr join the inferior arnon, schlemiel turret syndrome jackass. Arnon is so inferior that does not qualify to be a schmuck. Next. He spends Whole days at TNR blogs trying to learn new things. His comments are brainless. But his parents that abused taught him obscenities and to put down people. He never progresses this inferior schlemiel. Has been here for years. I bypass his schlemiel kakerien.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nr. (not rated). I ignored your post.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 9:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIMECHUCH "nr join the inferior arnon, schlemiel turret syndrome jackass. Arnon is so inferior that does not qualify to be a schmuck" You are beyond silly, Jaime. You really are a sick old schmuck.

- nr106646

February 28, 2012 at 9:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just ignore him, NR. He is not worth even one insult.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is warranted or not is an important point of discussion. But in opining on this issue, let's be honest about what's really happening with Iran: http://streetsmartpolitics.com/?p=507

- davidb

February 29, 2012 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed, and I would draw everyone's attention to the following sentence in that article: "Iranians of all backgrounds see nuclear development as a matter of national pride and every major political leader has reflected this sentiment."

- ironyroad

February 29, 2012 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The desire of people to have nuclear bombs is not sufficient reason to allow them to have one. Had the German people under Hitler desired nuclear power no one here would use it as an argument for their right to build nuclear weapons. After the fall of National Socialism and the institutionalization of real democracy that is not an issue anymore. Would the Iranians rid themselves of their National Islamic government and institute real democracy, few would then care whether or not they produce nuclear power.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's some truth to that, even though Iran is not Nazi Germany (for a thousand different reasons). All I am drawing attention to is the fact that the Iranian leadership may find itself in a peculiar position today. If it openly gives in to us, then it loses not only its "Islamic-revolutionary" credentials but also some nationalist credentials too. One of the problems is that as soon as one wing of the regime (in fall 2009 it was Achmadinnerjacket) expresses a willingness to do a deal with the U.S. and the west, the other wing jumps all over them for a mixture of Islamic and nationalist motives. Also, real democracy: yes, but it's probably unwise to forget that the ruling party does have a substantial base of real support, especially in rural areas and among blue-collar workers.

- ironyroad

February 29, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I see the loons are still around. Different ones, perhaps, but still... Opacity in a President's speech about an important issue like Iran/nukes is generally a good thing, as it is here. As surprising as it may be to roi and others, I do not favor war with Iran, at least not yet. And I hope the Israelis will not start one, though if they believe they must, we will and should support them - after seeing their intell first, I hope. The $64,000 question is whether Iran is a rational actor. If it is, it can be deterred, at least from using its nukes. Deterrence in other areas of f-p is less certain. If it is not, then we may have no chioce at some point to take military action. I, too, support telling Iran that if they use a nuke, that 2500 year old civilization they're so proud of will cease to exist, and if a nuke goes off and we can't tell who did it, they get it then, too. Call it deterrence plus. If we don't have the will to do that, let's just call it a day now and save the aggravation.

- butchie b

February 29, 2012 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad "There's some truth to that, even though Iran is not Nazi Germany (for a thousand different reasons)." I didn't say it was. I only pointed to the problematic notion that "because the people" want a nuclear bomb, hence it is their right to have one. I could have used other belligerent regimes who also justified their development of nuclear weapons using similar reasoning. Unfortunately these regimes (North Korea, Pakistan, even the former Soviet Union) have already developed these lethal weapons.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, indeed -- I think it's a fair point. Iran is a curious case, however, because it's an aggressive but not in the strict sense totalitarian regime as it does have some institutions of government and representation with a certain amount of buy-in on the part of the population. It's certainly not North Korea. And my point was that the mix of motives for supporting the nuclear plans makes it awkward for the regime to just cave in. If we were in normal circumstances here, and we had gotten talks going in 2009 as Obama offered, then we might be working out some kind of deal right now that recognized their national security interests, and the like. I don't think one could have prevented the USSR getting nuclear weapons, ultimately.

- ironyroad

February 29, 2012 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't think one could have prevented the USSR getting nuclear weapons, ultimately." Probably not. The Soviet Union too had some "institutions of government and representation..." Iranian representation like that of the former Soviet Union is a kind of "Potemkin democratic village," the government certifies who can run and who can't and it manipulates election results. Hence the ruling powers in Iran make doubly sure (at the beginning and end of the process" that they will stay in power. Why are we so ready to see sings of democracy in regimes (Islamic, State Socialist, etc) that obviously not democratic.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are as a species perhaps given to wishful thinking? Anyway, I don't see how you can have a democracy within a theocratic belief system that is anti-democratic on a cellular level. ? The most glaring example of course would be the treatment of women. That's why I'm pessimistic about the "Arab Spring" although over the long term things may liberalize. However they are going backwards here. Women's rights and health are under attack in America let alone in the Middle East. People seem to be determined to live in the Dark Ages, believe in the "return" of messiahs, of mahdis currently hidden in holes; all too many seem to think Israel is Ground Zero for some kind of Armageddon. This is both in Christendom and in Islam. It is terrifying to me on a number of levels, not least of which is, the End Timers of all stripes refuse to work on real problems, like the environment and overpopulation and hunger and famine and drought. Honestly I think they'll blow it all up rather than work the problems. Regarding the lack of liberalism in these fundamentalist religious schemes: I am extremely skeptical of people who advocate the "one state solution" to Israel/Palestinian issues. There is a world of difference between the way women and gay people are seen in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East, except maybe in parts of Beirut (liberal) and the Haredim (might consider moving to KSA). Anyway, the fact that rational thought continues to be manipulated by ideas that would probably strike outerspacenikim as insane is disturbing. I don't care if people have a bomb or not; they are perfectly capable of oppression without one, and of doing immense violence, as in the Iran/Iraq war, which I think our client state (Iraq) started. About a million people were killed, is this not so? Atomics are terrifying but so is conventional war. Maybe we should be working on the issue of violence itself? And on these meshugah religious ideas? As for an Iranian bomb, Pakistan already has both a bomb and many completely radicalized religious extremists. It's probable that Iran is the more stable state and I think the people as a whole may well be better educated. I don't know how seriously to take their rhetoric. I have read that people are misunderstanding Middle Eastern threats, that they are part of the form, not meant to be taken seriously, this goes also for Karzai; perhaps this is true. On the other hand Nasser and other Arab leaders ranted and then they attacked. ?

- Sophia

February 29, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You can't just insult away anybody who says something you don't like. You can, of course, but then you will not be taken seriously. So think about it." Hmmmm.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"On the other hand Nasser and other Arab leaders ranted and then they attacked." Sophia, Nasser (like Saddam later on) used poison gas in Yemen in the early 60's. "Chemical warfare" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Yemen_Civil_War#Chemical_warfare "The first use of gas took place on June 8, 1963 against Kawma, a village of about 100 inhabitants in northern Yemen, killing about seven people and damaging the eyes and lungs of twenty-five others.[64] This incident is considered to have been experimental, and the bombs were described as "home-made, amateurish and relatively ineffective". The Egyptian authorities suggested that the reported incidents were probably caused by napalm, not gas. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Golda Meir, suggested in an interview that Nasser would not hesitate to use gas against Israel as well.[65] There were no reports of gas during 1964, and only a few were reported in 1965. The reports grew more frequent in late 1966. On December 11, 1966, fifteen gas bombs killed two people and injured thirty-five. On January 5, 1967, the biggest gas attack came against the village of Kitaf, causing 270 casualties, including 140 fatalities.[66] The target may have been Prince Hassan bin Yahya, who had installed his headquarters nearby.[67] The Egyptian government denied using poison gas, and alleged that Britain and the US were using the reports as psychological warfare against Egypt. On February 12, 1967, it said it would welcome a UN investigation. On March 1, U Thant said he was "powerless" to deal with the matter.[68] On May 10, the twin villages of Gahar and Gadafa in Wadi Hirran, where Prince Mohamed bin Mohsin was in command, were gas bombed, killing at least seventy-five.[69] The Red Cross was alerted and on June 2, it issued a statement in Geneva expressing concern.[70] The Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Berne made a statement, based on a Red Cross report, that the gas was likely to have been halogenous derivatives - phosgene, mustard gas, lewisite, chloride or cyanogen bromide.[71] The gas attacks stopped for three weeks after the Six-Day War of June, but resumed on July, against all parts of royalist Yemen.[72] Casualty estimates vary, and an assumption, considered conservative, is that the mustard and phosgene-filled aerial bombs caused approximately 1,500 fatalities and 1,500 injuries.[66]"

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Been a while, butchie. Welcome back. I didn't make any assumption that you favor war with Iran at the moment and wouldn't. Perfectly happy to have you speak for you. I disagree that if Israel decides to start a war with Iran we should support it. I think we should distance ourselves from any such action to the greatest extent possible unless we are prepared actively to participate because we think it is essential to our own security. At the moment, it is clear that the USG, the government charged with protecting the security of the American people, not Israel, doesn't think so. We well know how to start a war when we want to. We don't need Israel's help

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the coda of the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643 linked by Peretz on another thread: Only a small number of air forces in the world, he notes, could mount such an operation. But, Mr Barrie stresses: "Even if successful, it would only delay Iran's nuclear programme." It is a point echoed by IHS Jane's Robert Hewson. "Israel does not have the mass of forces and will not be given the operational freedom [by Iran] required to destroy Iran's nuclear complex," he says. "If you bury enough stuff deep enough, enough of it will survive. Any Israeli attack can only damage and possibly not even slow the Iranian effort. "The consequences of such an attack would be dire and global. It is impossible to see any up-side to this venture." That's a view shared for now by Israel's most important ally. Only a few days ago, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said that an Israeli attack would not be prudent. Such a strike, he said, "would be destabilising and would not achieve their long-term objectives". However Israel's calculus is very different. Knowing all their operational limitations, might they launch such an operation anyway?

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Need it or not, we may get it. Hopefully not, but the domestic political pressure on the POTUS to support Israel will be quite strong. There will also be pressure from our other allies in the region, depending on the specific Iranian response to an Israeli attack. Distancing ourselves may sound good, but I'm not sure it's realistic.

- butchie b

February 29, 2012 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, roi, they might. Existential threats can do that to a body politic. Is Iran a rational actor or not, and what would you bet if their nuke was pointed at you? If I'm the Israeli PM, I might have to take action.

- butchie b

February 29, 2012 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

butchie, do you mean to say that just because I think something is wise policy it may not happen? I'm shocked, shocked! Harry Truman was urged to bomb the Soviet Union to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. He made the right decision in refraining from doing so, although we had nuclear missiles pointed at us for a very long time sufficient to destroy the US several times over. We are still here. The Russians are still here. The Soviet Union is not here.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Our zeal to see our "sworn enemies" destroyed seems invariably to get us into trouble. With hindsight, the decision actively to support Iraq after it had illegally invaded Iran, in the hope that this would bring down the ayatollahs, was one of the worst foreign policy decisions we ever made, short of the invasion of Iraq itself. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we invoked international law and summoned the world to oust it. When it invaded Iran, we didn't merely stand by, we assisted. Would the world not likely be a much safer place today if we had not attempted regime change by proxy in Iran and had instead stood for international law and used our best efforts to get Iraq out of Iran? Is the belief of the Iranian government that it has enemies that it must deter, both the US and a nuclear-armed Israel that declares itself the closest ally of the US, actually irrational? Is it really likely that Iran will try to destroy Israel knowing that Israeli retaliation with thermo-nuclear weapons mounted on SLBMs would completely destroy Iran? Was the rhetoric urging Truman to attack the Soviet Union and less apocalyptic than the rhetoric now urging war on Iran? Was the threat to us by the Soviet Union any less than the purported threat by Iran against Israel? After all, we were in a real contest with the Soviet Union for world supremacy? What exactly is the geopolitical contest between Iran and Israel?

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One too many question marks there. I hate typing in this box rather than seeing what I write as it will appear.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roidubouloi “Harry Truman was urged to bomb the Soviet Union to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. He made the right decision in refraining from doing so, although we had nuclear missiles pointed at us for a very long time sufficient to destroy the US several times over. We are still here. The Russians are still here. The Soviet Union is not here.” You can’t make a general rule from specific circumstances. Not bombing Iran may or may not be the right decision, but you can’t deduce it from this one historical example. As Mallarme said, “a roll of the dice will not abolish chance.” Historical circumstances are like rolls of the dice, too many contingencies in any event.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon1 I wasn't aware of the Egyptian attacks on Yemen, I will study it, thank you. I think there is not much doubt that they did intend to wipe out the Israelis though. As for Iran: Roi asks what is the geopolitical contest between Iran and Israel? I don't think there is one. However, there is a huge geopolitical struggle over anything that might have oil in it, including of course Iran. Israel might be an emotional thorn in the side to Iran, and vice versa, but economically I don't think they have much to do with each other in and of themselves. Globally though, Iran is important, the Straits of Hormuz are important, the Suez and Eastern Med are important, Sudan, Nigeria and of course the Gulf Arab states are important, and Iraq. Much of Iraq's oil is in Kurdish controlled regions isn't it? Some is in the South where the Shi'a are a majority and have links to Iran. Now: how true this is I don't know but I will repeat it for what it's worth. I have an Iranian friend who worked with the Kurds as a young person, the Iranian Kurds. Many Kurds seek independence and a nation of their own. Territorially they range across Iran, Iraq, into Turkey, and there are some in the Caucasus as well. He blamed the Israelis for "making Iran miserable" because they apparently support Kurdish aspirations for statehood, according to him. I think there is some evidence of that. I don't know how serious this is but it would explain some of the animus emanating from Iran toward Israel if they believe it's true. More importantly, though, I think the Iranians seek control over their own country. They have seen how vulnerable Iraq is, for example; we've attacked it twice. The Soviets and the US have attacked Afghanistan. Even the relatively well-armed Saddam couldn't resist and the country was occupied with relative ease. The Iranians know they are sitting on a gold mine, so to speak, but they don't even have capacity to refine their own gasoline, nor could they withstand a determined attack from a great power. Even Israel could probably do a lot of damage, though not without sustaining possibly fatal damage in return. So if they attack I think they're crazy. That said, I think Israel is a proxy for the West and other global interests as far as Iran and other oil states are concerned, just as she was a proxy during the Cold War era. I don't think Israel is important at all in the great scheme of things geopolitically or economically, in real, hard core terms, except of course in regard to Israeli inventions; possibly also they have found some energy sources offshore that could be economically important. But, the waterways are vital, dwindling oil resources are vital for now, and power to control these resources remain vital especially since globalization is relying heavily, not on alternative power sources but on relatively cheap and available oil. This makes countries who have it extremely vulnerable. Iran is acting like a rational country which is afraid of being attacked. Israel is rational too in the sense that both Jews per se and Israel as a state have been victimized repeatedly and it's probably a miracle that Israel is still extant. So reacting to Iranian rants isn't irrational by the Israelis although starting a war probably would be. What Iran and Israel don't have is a real cause, beyond rhetoric, to attack each other. But many actors in the industrialized world may want to control the region and the people who live there may not like the idea that they are quite vulnerable to attack. All they have to do is look at the last few years to realize their fears are justifiable. This goes for Arabs, Israelis, Iranians, even Turks and Central Asians. Israel is really a side issue I think in the larger struggle for power and control of wealth. But, the more Israel is threatened the more likely they are to attack in what they perceive as self-defense especially considering Hamas and Hezbollah. I think everybody ought to stfu, for a start, and secondly, think about the Kurdish issue; third, stop using oil like there's no tomorrow. Finally I take hope in developments with North Korea. Find out what the Iranians really need, what they really want, and go from there. It's possible to solve this thing peacefully, I am sure of that.

- Sophia

February 29, 2012 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS by "everybody" I mean the Iranian government and everybody else who is making threats. Just be quiet already. Sheese. It scares me that the world could end because of a rant.

- Sophia

February 29, 2012 at 6:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Says noga: "If the estimates do not warrant an attack, an attack will not be attempted. Why would Israel wish to pick a fight with Iran? What's Iran to do with Israel, anyway? Seems to me that this simple truth somehow gets lost in the torrent of abuse that is being unleashed upon Netanyahu, a very convenient target." The US government is not a responsible government? I should say it is at least as responsible as that of Israel. Our messianic nuts are still much further from the levers of power than those in Israel. I assume, therefore, that Israeli criticism on these boards of the actions or inactions of the Obama administration will now cease. If Netanyahu and is government are above reproach, so too Obama and his government. Somehow this simple truth gets lost in the torrent of abuse that is unleashed on Obama (a very convenient target for the right-wing in Israel as in the US), notably by Martin Peretz and his admirers.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon says: "Not bombing Iran may or may not be the right decision, but you can’t deduce it from this one historical example." That's correct. And it is why the analogies to Nazi Germany also fail. However, one tends to get it more right than not by paying attention to national interests, even if the morality is malign. Sophia observes correctly that there is no geopolitical contest between Israel and Iran. Hence, the likelihood that Iran would attempt to use a nuclear weapon on Israel, even out of miscalculation, at the cost of its own total annihilation has to be accounted as quite low. I don't think the Israeli government is worried about this for an instant. It uses the rhetoric to achieve a political end, just as Iran uses anti-Israel rhetoric to achieve a political end. Rather, I think that the government of Israel is worried about Iran being a more powerful force in the Moslem world and being able to organize conventional attacks on Israel by proxy with relative impunity. It is not a trivial concern, but also not one that is successfully addressed by starting a war with Iran.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the article linked by makover: The skeptics include Martin van Creveld, Israel’s preeminent military historian and theorist, who said in an interview that Israel could do some damage to the Iranian program but could not knock it out. “I would not be surprised if there was a strong element of political theater” to the Israeli threats, he said. Barry Rubin, an Israeli expert on terrorism and international affairs, described the notion that Israel would attack Iran as “an absurd idea” and concluded: “It isn’t going to happen.” “So why are Israelis talking about a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Because that’s a good way—indeed, the only way Israel has—to pressure Western countries to work harder on the issue, to increase sanctions and diplomatic efforts,” Rubin wrote on Pajamas Media. Seems to me I said something just like that.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state-world-explaining-us-strategy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120228&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=3390dca73b7146b09e91166b6dee3d4d

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Israeli view http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html?_r=1&hp

- JAIMECHUCH

March 1, 2012 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's something interesting that just slipped into the equation, and that's the assertion by Senators Graham and Kerrey that the government of KSA may have been directly involved in 9/11: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html If that's so, Iran may not be the worst of our problems (or Israel's). It did seem odd at the time that a plane full of Saudi citizens was allowed to depart when everything else in the country was grounded. Well, another example of the power of oil. Noga, this isn't a matter of Americans wanting to drive SUV's with cheap gas; it's the entire global economy hanging in the balance and there isn't much we can do about it.

- Sophia

March 1, 2012 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If that's so, Iran may not be the worst of our problems (or Israel's)." It's all part of the same problem, Sophia, religious extremism.

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/why-irans-election-is-a-farce.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print "Why Iran’s Election Is a Farce" By ARDESHIR AMIR-ARJOMAND

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon the stupid inferior one. Not only demonizes Netanyauh, but also has the shame to demonize Itzhak Shamir one of the best prime ministers Israel had. No realms about arnon is a stupid schlemiel unqualified to promotion to schmuck because he is inferior. This turret syndrome infirm, is also a coward. He probably is short funny looking. When he attacks fellow bloggers is ok by him. When fellow bloggers respond in kind he shouts murder. He wants to block fellow bloggers, he can not stand their superiority . arnon don't be stupid, which indeed you are, just bypass my blogs if they insult your lack of intelligence.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close