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 The Confidence Game

WASHINGTON DIARIST MARCH 29, 2012

The Confidence Game

BY LEON WIESELTIER

Thirty years ago I wrote a tiny book in defense of nuclear deterrence. Against the nuclear freezers and the nuclear war-fighters, deterrence was not hard to defend: my argument was drearily sensible. But I was nervously aware that I was urging good sense about a strategic situation that was senseless, because it was premised upon the credibility of a threat of holocaust. I was careful to note my discomfort in my book: deterrence, I said, may be supported but not celebrated, because it is another term for an unprecedentedly lethal danger, which it elects to manage rather than to abolish. I was uneasy with the commonplace notion that deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union “worked,” because this was impossible to verify. Having furiously attacked E.P. Thompson (thereby provoking a long response from him to “the little blue book of Chairman Wieseltier”—a fine souvenir of battle), I nonetheless cited with approval his remark that deterrence is “a counter-factual proposition that does not admit of proof.” I had no doubt that the absence of a thermonuclear confrontation between the superpowers was not least a matter of luck. So much could have gone cataclysmically wrong. The challenge was to defend deterrence uncomplacently, in full consciousness of its fragility; and a few years later my insistence upon intellectually troubled deterrence led me to publish an article in Foreign Affairs called “When Deterrence Fails.” That contingency, it seemed to me, had to be confronted. My piece consisted mainly in some inexpert thoughts about war termination, following a suggestion by Bernard Brodie in a paper he wrote not long before he died. Many people who liked my book disliked my essay. By imagining the use of nuclear weapons I had blasphemed against its “unimaginability,” and against the dogma of deterrence that (as I summarized it) “you cannot consider the possibility that deterrence may fail without contributing to the likelihood of its failure.” But the twentieth century did not give one grounds to think only good thoughts about the world.

 

WE ARE NOW WITNESSING a revival of the complacent version of deterrence. The cause of the new faith in the perfect efficacy of nuclear weapons for the prevention of conflict is the specter of a military strike, by Israel or the United States, against the nuclear installations of Iran. The discussion of the military option, writes Paul Pillar in The Washington Monthly, is “not rigorous analysis but a mixture of fear, fanciful speculation, and crude stereotyping. There are indeed good reasons to oppose Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons ... but an Iran with a bomb would not be anywhere near as dangerous as most people assume,” because “the principles of deterrence are not invalid just because the party to be deterred wears a turban and a beard.” In The American Prospect, Suzanne Maloney makes “the case for containing a nuclear Iran” in a comprehensive but confusing way. She contends that Obama’s “starry-eyed effort at engagement” has failed, and that the only solution lies in “launching direct dialogue between Washington and the Islamic Republic,” and that “a reinvestment in diplomacy is no guarantee of success.” Ruling out force and sanctions, she makes the bold recommendation that the administration “strive to move beyond P5+1,” and prepare to “live with a solution that constrained but did not extinguish Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” which is not obviously a solution at all. And on CNN.com, Fareed Zakaria, Counselor-in-Waiting to the President, declares that “deterring Iran is the best option,” because deterrence’s “record is remarkable”: in the cold war, after all, “both sides were deterred.” “The prospect of destruction produces peace,” he asserts, citing as his authority Kenneth Waltz, “one of the most distinguished theorists of international relations.”

 

KENNETH WALTZ IS ALSO the author of a paper, published in 1981, with the immortal title “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.” “Inferring expectations from past events and patterns,” Waltz concluded that “with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future,” because “nuclear weapons have never been used in a world in which two or more states possessed them.” Nuclear weapons make people rational, because all regimes wish to survive. As an example of an “irrational” leader (the skeptical quotation marks are his) wised up by perils to himself, Waltz cited Muammar Qaddafi, whose “sensitivity to costs” led him to be “forbearing and amenable to mediation.” This is the kind of faith in reason that gives rationalism a bad name. The belief in reason hardly entails the belief that the world is rational. And a look at Tacitus—who was not peer-reviewed, to be sure—should suffice to dispel this smugness about the psychology of power. I say Tacitus, because the destructive and self-destructive madmen in his pages did not wear turbans and beards. Sick minds have been distributed all across the human race, and nuclear weapons are the greatest gift ever given to sick minds, and sick minds sometimes come to power. Moreover, they sometimes hold worldviews that, in moments of anger or bliss, may weaken the appeal of logic. Who dares tell Israel that the president of Iran’s promise to incinerate it means nothing? Threat assessment is indeed a supremely empirical activity, but security planning can be crippled by a diminished sense of possibility. It is one of the stranger features of the debate about Iran’s nuclear program that people who are ordinarily anguished about nuclear proliferation can in this instance suddenly live with it. They lose sleep about Pakistan and North Korea, but about Iran slumber is an option. Pillar reassures his readers that “no regime in the history of the nuclear age has ever been known to transfer nuclear material to a non-state group.” What has been will always be. The unimaginability, again.

 

I CANNOT SAY with sufficient confidence that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be rational or right. There is too much information that I do not possess. I worry about the costs. I do not fear that the region would go to hell, because the Arab states would rejoice in such an action. (In this matter the leader of the Sunni bloc is the Jewish state.) But I do not know that Iran in its current political configuration will be deterred, and neither does anybody else.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article appeared in the April 19, 2012 issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 108 comments

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

108 comments

Deterrence does not work. Non-deterrence does not work. That is all we know and not enough. Somehow human beings have muddled through, but human history strikes me as an eons long game of Russian Roulette with the odds getting worse and worse with each technological advance in our ability to deliver death in so many creative ways. Shall we count the ways? Nuclear war. Engineered viruses. Overpopulation. Ecological destruction. Exhaustion of natural resources... http://www.thebulletin.org/content/media-center/announcements/2012/01/10/doomsday-clock-moves-to-five-minutes-to-midnight

- skahn

March 30, 2012 at 12:17am

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

"Can Iran be deterred?" In terms of nuclear dangers I think Pakistan is de furst, and Iran de second.

- ironyroad

March 30, 2012 at 1:29am

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

Wieseltier is certainly right that it is impossible to know that deterrence will work to absolutely prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons. It's also impossible to know that military action, short of successfully invading Iran, will prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons. If Israel does attack, and succeeds, then fine, nuclear standoff averted. But if it attacks and fails, it has certainly drastically reduced the chance that deterrence will work. A preemptive attack on Iran by Israel is thus an extreme example of high-risk, high-reward calculations, with the life of 2 nations in the balance. To say that Netanyahu does not inspire confidence as the calculator in this would be a huge understatement.

- IowaBeauty

March 30, 2012 at 6:58am

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

Netanyahu is not reckless. He is faced with the possible dire consequences of non- action. He served in the Israel Defense Forces and knows the consequences of war; Obama has not served in anybody's army. His brother Yonatan Netanyahu was a paratrooper killed in the raid on Entebbe (Uganda) Airport in to free 100 Israeli and Jewish hostages in 1976. Given Obama's tendency to compromise with extremist Republicans, Islamists, and Russians alike, can Netanyahu trust Obama to act decisively after the 2012 US elections? Nuclear deterrence won't work with Iran because Obama (and Romney) are not credible. Current economic sanctions are full of holes. Iran, of course, will milk all the strategic advantages afforded by its nuclear and petro power. Meanwhile, Iran is actively using its military power either directly or through proxies on all fronts to advance its global agenda. They're in it to win and defeat the West. Obama and much of official Washington think that Iran is another planet; they just want to roll over and go back to sleep.

- amidut

March 30, 2012 at 8:07am

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

On the other hand. President Obama's stuttering policies inspire great confidence. He really seems to know what is needed and applies action to thoughts: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209836,00.html "The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off. Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties. "

- noga1

March 30, 2012 at 8:22am

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

Amidut, Whether or not Netanyahu is or is not reckless on this question remains to be seen, but in any event, having served in the military hardly qualifies that question. Had JFK followed the "sober" advice of his military in 1963 much of the US and USSR may well have been incinerated. All of those advisers had significant military leadership, both in the field and in leadership positions. I'm not sure what Obama's or Romney's credibility has to due with nuclear deterrence working between Israel and Iran - Israel has its own nukes, and Iran could not possible survive the use of even a fraction of those against its population centers. Anyone who imagines that Israel would not put those nukes on minutes-to-launch alert if Iran once demonstrated a nuclear capability is simply unrealistic. Israel's long run of success over the last 60 years notwithstanding, not every problem can be best solved by application of force. Sometimes, force makes things (much) worse. A presumption that force is necessary and proper seems, however, to be the animating principle behind much of the heated support for a preemptive strike. noga, If your point is that the US will use all formal and informal channels at it's disposal to accomplish its perfectly legitimate aims vis-a-vis Iran and Israel, then, yes, of course this is true. Israel, with it's explicit and implicit attempts to manipulate US policy through our electoral process and media hardly has standing to complain about this.

- IowaBeauty

March 30, 2012 at 9:13am

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

Not to advocate one way or another, but one of the arguments against a strike that keeps popping up is something along the lines of, "a strike by Israel or the United States or both would only set back Iran's nuclear program by 5 years at best". This has never made a great deal of sense to me. Any industrialized country who decides to be hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons could - in my understanding - go from zero capability to being ready to test fire in the same such window of time. Again, this is not to advocate a strike, but as an argument against hitting Iran - because it "only" sets them back 5 years or so - seems to me to be some pretty weak tea. Like others on here I doubt deterrence will work. Too much depends upon assumption that we're dealing with rational actors in Tehran, and that's a big assumption. I still think the best course of action is communicating to Iran our committment to hitting them if any one of four things occur: They announce they have a working weapon, they test a weapon (regardless of the results), they attack Israel or anyone else with a weapon that contains fissible material (again, whether it goes boom or not is of course irrelevent), or the sale of a nuclear weapon or any of the components thereof is traced back to them. In any of those cases, the US will respond with the complete destruction of every military target inside Iran's borders. Every army and air base, every training facility and weapons storage site, everything will be leveled, and we will continue attacks until the entire leadership cadre of the country leaves Iran. Additionally, in the case of condition #3, an attack against Israel with a nuclear weapon - again, whether it functions properly or not - the attack will include the complete destruction of Tehran and a US ground force sent in to obliterate anything of the Iranian leadership and military that hasn't already been vaporized, to be replaced with a western style democracy along the lines of the cluster fk we've left in Baghdad. Nice mention of Tacitus. "Solitudinem faciunt pacem appelant". We would all do well to remember the lesson.

- Tristan

March 30, 2012 at 9:22am

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

I have seen suppositions that if Israel strikes Iran nuclear facilities at most it will give the world another extra 6 months without Iran having nuclear weapons. 6 months is good. 6 months at least gives the world another 6 months to try to stop Iran from destroying Israel with as they call it, " a one bomb state." Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates would breath a sigh of relief while protesting loudly Israel's attack on a Muslim state.

- Poupic

March 30, 2012 at 9:26am

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

Another possibility is a wisdom perspective that spans long reaches of time. Living in Iran I met many who despaired that their democratically elected President Mossadegh (supported by Truman) was removed by the CIA in 1954 because Churchill leaned on President Eisenhower to oust him so Britain could resume its virtual ownership of Iranian Oil revenues. It is no secret that many Iranians have seethed because this event appears to many as interference, theft and hypocrisy--the work of the Great Shaitan. Not all "old wrongs" can be righted, and surely, millions of Iranians just want to move on and live in the present; but there is also the possibility of acknowledging a wrong and apologizing. There is a possibility of showing respect even if it is overdue. For some, old wrongs may fester over time. I met an Iranian who was furious that Alexander had torched his library at Persepolis. I've known Jews who "remember" difficulties with Persian Kings and Judith's manoeuvre to free her people. We need to resuscitate the possibility of a wisdom that helps to look back and straighten out some of our shoddy deeds.

- JohnC

March 30, 2012 at 10:02am

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

From Martin Kramer's Sandbox: Ehud Olmert gave the keynote at the J Street conference, and some on the left of the left are appalled. But this version of the outrage is interesting, because the penultimate paragraph holds up Netanyahu as a paragon of restraint. Conclusion: “While sparing his public the pipes of peace, he has repaired much of his predecessor’s damage.” J Street: willing to follow any pied piper of peace—off a cliff. http://forward.com/articles/153641/j-street-stumbles-by-inviting-olmert/ "By contrast, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has captained a more steady ship. While sparing his public the pipes of peace, he has repaired much of his predecessor’s damage. He has eased, considerably, the siege on Gaza and removed many of the roadblocks and obstacles that Olmert retained across the West Bank. He has brought back Israel’s captured soldier alive, in exchange for a mass Palestinian prisoner release. He even halted the settlement construction Olmert pursued, just for a bit. The military occupation of the West Bank remains with all its associated injustice, but while Olmert rushed to escalate and radicalize, Netanyahu has largely calmed. Contrast Netanyahu’s sanguine and low-key response to the cross-border attack near Eilat last August with Olmert’s ill-judged rush into war following a less violent penetration of its border with Lebanon. Even a government-appointed commission condemned Olmert’s judgment as “misguided and rash.” Olmert insists that that ending the conflict justified his lethal means. Netanyahu has been more circumspect about shedding blood for elusive goals."

- noga1

March 30, 2012 at 10:19am

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

Obama's foreign policy of toadying to our enemies and undermining our friends could become a major issue in the 2012 campaign. It could even lead to a major political crisis nobody wants to see. The Democrats would do well to consider another, more suitable Presidential candidate who would stand up to both conservative Republicans and Iran.

- amidut

March 30, 2012 at 10:57am

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

"I've known Jews who "remember" difficulties with Persian Kings and Judith's manoeuvre to free her people." I think you mean Esther, not Judith.

- wildboy

March 30, 2012 at 11:13am

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

Given the number of countries invaded by Iran in the last 2,000 or so years and the number invaded by the US in the last 200, the better question is, "Can the US be deterred?"

- roidubouloi

March 30, 2012 at 11:23am

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

Actually I will put this 'theory' of deterrence on the table. Should Israel (an undeclared nuclear power) choose to preemptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities why bother with conventional weapons if it only buys you a momentary 2-5 year pause in Iran's march towards nuclearization? Why bother with third rate munitions like bunker busters and depleted uranium, commando raids and airstrikes when Israel and Netanyahu can simple use a single thermonuclear device on Iran. Instead of wasting time and energy talking, enacting sanctions and using conventions weapons. Then if those 'pugnacious Arabs' dare to raise a fist at what Israel has done to Iran, we can all point to Iran and say "See! This is what happens when you decide to go nuclear!" I mean what's the point of deterrence if we never get to use these magnificent inventions of death any more? The U.S.'s rationale for dropping two bombs on Japan was that they didn't capitulate fast enough so we had to be doubly sure they learned their lesson. After 60 years, they've turned out to be great friends after all. I think preemptive nuclear annihilation of half of Iran would show the remaining M.E. that Israel is not to be fucked with and would put a kibosh on all the idle saber rattling that goes on over there. Why beat around the proverbial burning bush?

- singlspeed

March 30, 2012 at 1:35pm

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

'I have seen suppositions that if Israel strikes Iran nuclear facilities at most it will give the world another extra 6 months without Iran having nuclear weapons. 6 months is good. 6 months at least gives the world another 6 months to try to stop Iran from destroying Israel with as they call it, " a one bomb state."' I'm not sure I believe the "only 6 months argument" but if it is true this short sighted bit of logic is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I wrote that force sometimes makes thing much worse. Suppose Israel strikes Iran and sets them back 6 months. If Iran is still 5 years away from a testable nuke, then Israel might add 6 months to the clock, without - given the time for things to return their currently abominable state of normal - fundamentally changing the odds that Iran will use their nuclear capability. Israel may feel it has to act now because of a closing window of military opportunity, and rely on the longer time frame to calm things down, or other options to present themselves. But if Iran is less than a year from a nuclear capability, does anyone really imagine that an act of war against Iran by Israel doesn't drastically increase the likelihood that Iran will later act irrationally and ignore Israel's nuclear deterrent?

- IowaBeauty

March 30, 2012 at 1:37pm

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

No matter what Israel does or does not do, it will be interpreted by some that its actions or inaction as a major contributing cause to Iranian threats or actions. What has Israel done to iran in the firsf placeto earn itthat countries genocidal hatred? We are not talking about conventional animosity, the hatred seemsalmost metaphysical. Any real assessment will have to take this abstract hatred in mind.

- arnon1

March 30, 2012 at 2:07pm

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

Singlespeed cynicism doesn't say much about his capacity to think clearly about serious issues. First, Israel hasn't threatened Iran with nucler devastation. It was Rafsanjani (a supposed moderate who stated that "one nuclear bomb" would be enough to destroy all of Israel while it would take many more bombs to destroy Iran. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons means that Israel has the capacity to strike back should a nuclear armed Muslim State attack it. Israel ha never threatened anyArab or Muslim Statewithdestruction. singlespeed point is a cheap one based on lies and faulty supposiions

- arnon1

March 30, 2012 at 3:04pm

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

Singlespeed cynicism doesn't say much about his capacity to think clearly about serious issues. First, Israel hasn't threatened Iran with nucler devastation. It was Rafsanjani (a supposed moderate who stated that "one nuclear bomb" would be enough to destroy all of Israel while it would take many more bombs to destroy Iran. The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons means that Israel has the capacity to strike back should a nuclear armed Muslim State attack it. Israel ha never threatened anyArab or Muslim Statewithdestruction. singlespeed point is a cheap one based on lies and faulty supposiions

- arnon1

March 30, 2012 at 3:04pm

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

"Obama's foreign policy of toadying to our enemies and undermining our friends could become a major issue in the 2012 campaign." Impeccable timing, amidut, as always. Obama today announced that the US can now impose the maximum available sanctions on Iran's major global export and source of hard currency. If that's toadying to Iran, I would hate to see what undermining looks like! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/global/obama-to-clear-way-to-expand-iranian-oil-sanctions.html?_r=1&hp

- wildboy

March 30, 2012 at 3:07pm

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

A gun that appears in the first act of a play is sure to be fired in the second. Eventually the unimaginable will happen; somewhere, somehow.

- paskunac

March 30, 2012 at 3:38pm

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

Start a gigantic campaign through the social media and bombing Iran with millions of leaflets, explaining the people of Iran they are being lead to a nightmare war of utter destruction. It will not stop by mere destruction of the nuclear reactors, it will continue until the theocratic regime will be totally eliminated. The people of Iran should be totally informed.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 30, 2012 at 4:20pm

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

Wildboy, sanctions are different from an Israeli or American attack on strategic Iranian installations. Sanctions are part of Obama's delay strategy. He wants to "negotiate" with the mullahs, which would allow them to continue their weapons development in Iran and conquests in Syria and elsewhere. His administration has been leaking Israeli plans to forestall Israeli action. The administration may force Israel to act sooner rather than later. It boggles the mind that Obama seems more concerned about protecting the Iranian regime than protecting Israel. The Iranian regime has vast resources and many willing collaborators. It will not be deterred by sanctions. This is the kind of foreign policy malpractice that could become an issue in the election campaign. Just whose side is Obama on? Does he really have Israel's back?

- amidut

March 30, 2012 at 4:26pm

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

"It boggles the mind that Obama seems more concerned about protecting the Iranian regime than protecting Israel." It should boggle your mind, Amidut since the notion that President Obama is more concerned with "protecting" the Iranian regime than Israel is totally without foundation. But perhaps I am wrong, could you share with terrestrials like me without clairvoyance what your evidence is?

- arnon1

March 30, 2012 at 4:53pm

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

In the absence of UN black helicopters and a overwhelmingly dominent one-world governement, if you are a nation that wishes not to be dominated by other nations--- get yourself a bomb. That basically- irrefutable logic holds for the US, Russia, China, France, England, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Andorra, Monaco -- and Israel and Iran. Which is why, as roi indirectly points out, we have invaded more nations than any other since 1950. But never a nation that had the bomb at the time we invaded. Pure co-incidence?

- drofnats1

March 30, 2012 at 7:43pm

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

To return to the question addressed by the title of this essay, the assertion that Iran cannot be deterred requires one to presume that Iran's bomb would be under the control of a single insane individual, and that just isn't how the things work, even in states where dictatorial power is more tightly concentrated than it is in Iran. Nations, even those governed by theocracies, do not consciously commit suicide. Amedinejad might have meant it when he threatened to incinerate Israel (though it's more likely that was hyperbole meant for the home audience), but even if he did, he did not say he would incinerate Israel even if it guaranteed the total destruction of Iran, nor would have the only finger on the button. Anyone who is being honest with himself can recognize that the Iranian regime wants a bomb not to destroy Israel but rather to prevent the Islamic Republic from going the way of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. In other words, those of you who advocated for America's pointless and illegal "first strike" invasion of Iraq have done more to spur Iran's nuclear ambitions than anyone else.

- AaronW

March 30, 2012 at 8:49pm

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

I like to go over the info. Early in the week Turkey's Erdogan visited Iran and declared he was against attacking Iran. Turkey gets 30% of it's oil from Iran. A few hours ago it was reported that Turkey is cutting 20% the Iranian oil purchases following USA requests. I guess Erdogan is in favor of sanctions. Iranian oil exports are 20% to China, 17% to India, 16% to Japan, 16% to Italy, 7% to South Korea. Recently Iran and India signed an agreement to increase trade from 12 billion USD to 19 billion in next few years. Qatar declared that USA will not be allowed to use USA military bases in any bombing of Iran. Qatar GDP is $105,000.( highest in the world). Recent foreign investment in Qatar was 100 bln USD of which 60 to 70 bln were USA investment (Wikipedia). According to Vali Nasr , Iranian businessmen do a heluva of business in Qatar. Also higher ups of the Iranian armed forces control the high lucrative contraband due to imposed sanctions. Yesterday there were news that USA had given clearance to Israel to use American bases in Azerbaijan, thus Israel will not need to refuel for attacking Iran. Of course BHO is going ahead with harsher sanctions http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/apnewsbreak-source-says-obama-finds-global-oil-supply-ok-to-proceed-with-sanctions-on-iran/2012/03/30/gIQAivCWlS_story.html I still insist that the Iranian people should be kept informed of what is going on, and see if the Iranian military will convince their theocratic leaders that they are headed to a major disaster if they pursue nuclear weapons.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 30, 2012 at 9:21pm

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

AaronW “the assertion that Iran cannot be deterred requires one to presume that Iran's bomb would be under the control of a single insane individual, and that just isn't how the things work, even in states where dictatorial power is more tightly concentrated than it is in Iran.” You are confusing a number of issues, Aaron. Regimes have aims and purposes. Regimes are put together to implement these aims. Tyrannical regimes are ruled by cliques. There is often a head of a clique who decides when and how an operation is to be carried out. Even in democracies in times of crises we defer to the commander in chief. These are some general principles that one should keep in mind when speaking of insanity a term that does not belong to political philosophy. Nero, Caligula were insane but their insanity but their insanity neither founded nor destroy the Roman State. Hitler might or might not have been insane but he did lead Germany to commit suicide. Instead of insanity we need to speak of ideology: Iran like other totalitarian regimes was founded on a fixed set of principles: the deployment of Islam as the States only legitimate governing system. A corollary principle is the need to destroy what they call “the imported Jewish State” because it is not and can never be a Muslim State. Islam does not allow competing legal system to coexist within its territory. The competing religion or legal system has to acknowledge the supremacy of Islam. This is what led the Ayatollah Khomeini to seek the destruction of Israel. It is not a single ruler’s passion but the policy of the Islamic regime. This hatred is metaphysical in nature. It is a similar hatred that the German Nationalist party held towards Judaism. Similar but not the same since the Nazis saw each and every Jews as evil the Islamicists see every evil enemy as a Jew. To put it differently to Nazi Germany Jews were evil, to Islamic Teheran evil is Jewish. In practice though, it amounts to the same thing: do away with evil do away with Jews. It impossible to look back at the trajectory of Nazi Germany and not see it as a suicidal State. This became clear in the last moths of the War when der Fuhrer was ready to sacrifice “his race, his people” in order to deprive its enemies, Jews Communists and decadent England and the US of the ability to put them on trial for crimes they had committed. (It was all for naught since in the end this is exactly what happened. The Ayatollah regime too gives the impression that it cannot survive as long as Israel is a normal functioning State. ( I would guess that they are right, in the long run.) Israel though could survive and thrive whether Iran is there or not and whether it is being ruled by the Ayatollahs, a Shah, or a freely elected Parliamentary system. This is the difference between metaphysical hatred and suspicion based on credible threats. Iran’s hatred is aggressive; Israel self-defense measures are not aggressive. Iran’s ideological State is far from being the only government that holds a metaphysical hatred of organized Jewry: Many on the fringes of the left such as the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, the reelected pro Hezbollah politician in the same country, Galloway, etc. This doesn’t mean that I support a strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time. What might be gained will be paltry compared to what could go wrong. I’d like to see if Obama’s counter measures against Iran could work. Finally, while the Iranian threat is real, I agree with some who have argued that making it seem inevitable may have the result of driving some Israelis to abandon their country. This is not in Israel’s interest. Israel should follow Ben Gurion’s dictum and try to make some moves on the “peace front” as if there were no Iranian threat and deal with Iran as if there were no Palestinian threat. Both challenges are real but Israel has dealt with dual and triple challenges before and was able to overcome them. If Israel decides that Iran and only Iran is its main threat or even its only threat it will be making an existential mistake. “Nations, even those governed by theocracies, do not consciously commit suicide.” Amedinejad might have meant it when he threatened to incinerate Israel (though it's more likely that was hyperbole meant for the home audience), but even if he did, he did not say he would incinerate Israel even if it guaranteed the total destruction of Iran, nor would have the only finger on the button. Anyone who is being honest with himself can recognize that the Iranian regime wants a bomb not to destroy Israel but rather to prevent the Islamic Republic from going the way of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. In other words, those of you who advocated for America's pointless and illegal "first strike" invasion of Iraq have done more to spur Iran's nuclear ambitions than anyone else.

- arnon1

March 30, 2012 at 11:02pm

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

"It impossible to look back at the trajectory of Nazi Germany and not see it as a suicidal State. This became clear in the last moths of the War when der Fuhrer was ready to sacrifice “his race, his people” in order to deprive its enemies, Jews Communists and decadent England and the US of the ability to put them on trial for crimes they had committed." This analogy to Nazi Germany is inapt for a couple reasons. 1. Hitler and his regime did not become "suicidal" until their destruction was already a fete acompli. Their "suicidality" is directly analogous to the hostage-taker who, surrounded by the SWAT team and facing the death penalty, elects to kill all his hostages and then himself. I agree that it is altogether possible that had the Nazis possessed one or more A-bombs they would have employed them in the last months in the war even if it were also the case that the Allies had the bomb as well and the Germans' first strike would ensure the death of a large proportion of the German population. But you must see that this is only true because the Nazi regime was already facing certain destruction, and contemplation of this hypothetical sheds little light if any on the likely behavior of a nuclear-armed Iran contemplating a first strike on Israel. 2. It his arguable that the Nazi state's suicidality only manifested itself after the Nazi state had ceased to exist as such. Neither the German people nor the Wehrmacht wanted to see themselves destroyed, and both entities stopped taking instruction from Hitler some time before he offed himself in his bunker. Would der Fuhrer have had enough people at hand willing to follow his evil dictates to employ some super weapon knowing that it meant that they and everyone they had ever known would die? This is the sort of counterfactual query that is impossible to answer with any kind of certainty, but my hunch is that the answer is, "No."

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 1:11am

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

Let me put it another way: Is it conceivable that there could ever be sufficient consensus among the relevant players in the Iranian regime for it to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel in full knowledge that to do so would result in the immediate and total destruction of the Iranian state and people? I submit that it is not. Is it conceivable that if the delivery and detonation of a nuclear device was under the sole control of a single individual or small number of motivated individuals such a cadre could launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel in full knowledge that to do so would result in the immediate and total destruction of the Iranian state and people? Possibly so. But neither the Islamic Republic of Iran nor any other actually existing government including North Korea constitutes such a group, nor will they transform into such a group unless they are placed under the kind of extreme pressure that the USSR put Hitler under in the spring of 1945 or that the US placed the Ba'athists under in the spring of 2003.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 1:30am

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

For millennia the defense posture of Jews has been to bend down like a reed in the wind and cooperate with their prosecutors with the hope that "this too shall pass". They appealed to the ruling powers, negotiated, pleaded. They sacrificed some members of their community but saved the majority. Under the protection of some popes and secular rulers they thrived. Neither passive resistance nor active resistance were contemplated. "We are Eternal People, we cannot be destroyed, we can only suffer". All this seemed to work until the rise of Nazi Germany. In the Nazis the Jews encountered enemies that did not want to negotiate, they did not want their pound of flesh. They wanted total annihilation and destruction. And the Nazis were rational, educated, civilized. Since the beginning of their political movement the Nazis promised the annihilation of the Jews and they kept their promise. For them the Jews were vermin, virus, cancer, disease. But the "wise men" said "oh, it's just a hyperbole. And no, they are not suicidal". But the Nazis thought the war was winnable and the annihilation of the Jews was a realistic, achievable goal. They thought they will prevail. The Iranians claim just the same, that nuclear war with Israel is winnable and that the destruction of Israel is an achievable goal. Therefore, any country that is threatening the Jewish people with annihilation cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Period! Ari Shavit in Haaretz. Shavit is far from being "right wing" but he has his finger on the pulse. In his articles describing the difference in view from Washington and Jerusalem have ominous but realistic tone: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/washington-and-jerusalem-differ-on-iran-1.420110 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/jerusalem-washington-and-the-iranian-bomb-1.415657 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-iran-attack-is-the-toughest-question-israel-faced-since-1948-1.418747

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 31, 2012 at 8:23am

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

"Therefore, any country that is threatening the Jewish people with annihilation cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Period!" The Jews might not have a choice, makeover. How do you propose that Iran be stopped from getting its bomb? Air strikes? They probably won't work. Ground invasion? By who? The US? Ain't gonna happen. By Israel? Even if that were militarily feasible, which it isn't, such an operation would see what little international support for the Jewish state that remains transformed into open antagonism. Preemptive nuclear strike? Again, by who? The US? Never. Israel? And see itself become the very thing it abhores? It would behoove you and others who speak so indignantly about what must not stand with regards to Iran and the bomb to think realistically about what is possible and what isn't and to recognize that whatever it's titular president might have said, it is not now nor will it ever be in the Iranian government's interest to incinerate Israel.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 8:54am

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

AaronW: There is always a choice. Even not choosing is a choice. And whether and how to do it I will leave to the Matkal. "Even if that were militarily feasible, which it isn't, such an operation would see what little international support for the Jewish state that remains transformed into open antagonism. Preemptive nuclear strike? Again, by who? The US? Never. Israel? And see itself become the very thing it abhores?" You seem to know that it is not militarily feasible. Why, because various talking heads and so called "unnamed military experts" tell you it is not? It was done before wasn't it? I have more trust in one Amos Yadlin than in all the so called "military experts". Re: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html And since when defending yourself against annihilation becomes "abhorrent"? But most important, never say "never".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 31, 2012 at 9:42am

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

Sorry AaronW. The rest of my comment was cut. There is always a choice. Even not choosing is a choice. And whether and how to do it I will leave to the Matkal. "Even if that were militarily feasible, which it isn't, such an operation would see what little international support for the Jewish state that remains transformed into open antagonism. Preemptive nuclear strike? Again, by who? The US? Never. Israel? And see itself become the very thing it abhores?" First of all, nobody is talking about "Preemptive nuclear strike". This has not been mentioned by enybody. You seem to know that it is not militarily feasible. Why, because various talking heads and so called "unnamed military experts" tell you it is not? It was done before wasn't it? I have more trust in one Amos Yadlin than in all the so called "military experts". Since when defending yourself from annihilation became "abhorrent"? BTW, read Amos Yadling OpEd in NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 31, 2012 at 9:49am

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

AaronW:Your analogy to Nazi Germany is particularly relevant to Iran/Israel issue. As you yourself state "Hitler and his regime did not become "suicidal" until their destruction was already a fete acompli" So, if what you claim is true, they have undertaken the war against Poland, the rest of Europe and 1941 invasion of Soviet Union with a full expectation of success. At the same time they initiated complete annihilation of the Jews, in Poland and occupied parts of Soviet Republics. It is therefore hard understand why the Iranian regime, a sane and rational and not suicidal regime as you claim might not envision a similar adventure. Re: Below Rafsanjani's statement. TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. I have said many times, Jews have bitter experience with political movements, groups and regimes whose creed and platform includes destruction of the Jews.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 31, 2012 at 10:27am

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

Aaron, you can tell fairy tales if you like, but the Nazi regime was suicidal from day one. They braved each and ever aggressive move from their reoccupation of the Rhineland, to the invasion of Poland by challenging better armed forces with the swagger that they were "ready to die for their cause." It wasn't till 39 that they were finally challenged. At that point they had built up their defenses which allowed them to first to conquer then to hold on to most of the countries they walked into without much opposition. When the going got tough as in Stalingrad Hitler issued suicidal orders for his troops to fight to the last man. None of this would have come as a surprise to readers of Mein Kampf. Moreover the fact that most Germans didn't fight to the death doesn't mean that they didn't support his regime to the very end. The number of German casualties was huge and caused mostly by Nazi policy. The same dynamic was in evidence in Japanese and other Fascist States of the period. Each case is different but there are enough similarities to suggest that Fascist and I would argue Islamic regimes are driven by a desire for martyrdom. (They live under the aegis of Thanatos). The same dynamic was involved in Stalin's rule when he asked his people to fight and die for mother Russia and not for the Communist system. Add nuclear weapons into the mix and the future will not resemble the past. Now, if Iran does manage to destroy Israel this will hardly appease its appetite for further aggression. We are talking about the logic of totalitarian rule and not its actual history. Hezbollah is one another such movement and the world community will need to confront is sooner or later, why not sooner when they can still be defeated with relative ease. This shouldn't be solely Israel's task. Israel and Jews are seen as the eternal enemy of the Islamists but they are hardly the only enemy of Iran.

- arnon1

March 31, 2012 at 2:24pm

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

Arnon: I pretty much agree with your conclusions but I think you are wrong to claim that the Nazis were suicidal from day one. They were obviously opportunistic and took every attempt to try to defuse the situation as sign of weakness. I believe that they were very convinced by the power of their narrative and by the appeasers among the Europeans that they will be the root of the thousand year reich. In Poland they faced a War World I military, incapable to mount a defense of the country against a modern army.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 31, 2012 at 2:54pm

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

makover “Arnon: I pretty much agree with your conclusions but I think you are wrong to claim that the Nazis were suicidal from day one.” My views are informed by an early essay by the German novelist Musil. Their aim he says was the acquisition power to force destruction on their enemies. This is why they are not that easy to analyze. Respectful bourgeois can’t abide the idea that there are groups and individuals driven by a desire to annihilate. If they had an ideology it was nihilism. Unlike the Bolsheviks they didn’t even attempt to disguise that. Nazi flunkies like Heidegger and Karl Schmitt told themselves stories about “true and glorious national socialism as the former said. Schmitt especially mistook his allies as conventional Jew haters and haters of the bourgeoisie (two groups he disliked the most). Ironically, bourgeois people can’t seem to tolerate the existence of nihilism hence they ascribe all kind of motives and excuses for Nazi, Bolshevik, or Islamic behavior. (The latter nihilists use the Koran as their dogma.) This is problem with bourgeois bad faith and not with the nihilists for whom rejection of ideology is a badge of honor.

- arnon1

March 31, 2012 at 3:34pm

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

I don't know that it is militarily unfeasible for limited military action to forestall Iran's nuclear program; I know that it is possible for it to be so and that knowledgeable people have suggested as much. A full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran is, in fact, entirely feasible--at least by the US, but it isn't going to happen, not even if Mid East hawks' favored alternative to Obama were to get elected. So it would be a good idea for true friends of Israel to start thinking realistically about what the world would actually look like with a nuclear-armed Iran and to plan for that eventuality rather than continuing to stamp their feet shouting, "It must not be!"

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 6:10pm

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

"So it would be a good idea for true friends of Israel to start thinking realistically about what the world would actually look like with a nuclear-armed Iran and to plan for that eventuality rather than continuing to stamp their feet shouting, "It must not be!"" Not the only two alternatives.

- arnon1

March 31, 2012 at 6:39pm

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

Yes, arnon, there is the third alternative that I had already addressed in my previous posts: a preemptive strike by one means or other on Iran. Targeted strike: (probably) won't work Regime-changing invasion: won't happen Nuclear strike: evil

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 6:54pm

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

Then there is the samctions/diplomacy route, never popular here at TNR, which probably has a greater likelihood of success than targeted military action, though from my layman's POV the odds still look pretty long.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 7:00pm

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

Here's a little allegory taken from my own life: My friend and I were sitting together drinking in a bar at a small table. Next to us there was another pair of men, older and bigger than both of us. One of those men turned toward my friend and without a word spoken flicked a cigarette, unlit fortunately, in my friend's face. It was an entirely gratuitous insult, unprovoked and unexplained. My friend, who then weighed about 140lbs, looked at me and said, "Don't you wish sometimes that you were some kind of super black-belt in karate and you could just go, 'Zip!'?" He made a cutting gesture with his hand. I said, "You don't need to know karate. You could destroy that guy right now if you wanted to. You could stand up, pick up the chair you're sitting on and break it over his head. You just have to have the will." "And be willing to face the consequences," my friend added. "And the consequences would be the same whether you defeated him with a chair or with super karate skills." The point, of course, is that violence is violence, and that if you lack the stomach for the maximally violent option, you should think very carefully before you employ the lesser means.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 7:13pm

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

Your story does not reflect accurately the Iran-Israel situation. It would be more to point if the person who insulted your friend followed the slighter gesture by picking a bottle, smashing it on the table thus turning it into a lethal weapon and then, brandishing it, continued to flick cigarettes some unlit some lit, at your friend. At that point your friend would be fully justified in picking up a chair and breaking it over the man's head.

- noga1

March 31, 2012 at 8:42pm

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

AaronW "Yes, arnon, there is the third alternative that I had already addressed in my previous posts: a preemptive strike by one means or other on Iran." There is a fourth and a fifth alternative, and probably many more: Keep the issue on the front pages, don't let people forgoer what is at stake. Another altrernative which is probably being implemented covertly is offer military aid to anti Hezbollah anti Ayatollah forces in and out of Iran. And then and then... passivity and limitation of alternatives is not an option.

- arnon1

March 31, 2012 at 8:53pm

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

Well this shouldn't be an issue left to Israel; it's a global problem. Actually I think jaimechuch has a good thought: education. But, Iran is rightly frightened, the attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan would scare anybody silly. So: mutual security means the US and Russia and other great powers stop attacking people. That's really pretty critical. We keep talking about Mossedegh but the fears of the Iranian people must be far more immediate. As far as genocidal antisemitism is concerned, it's real and I don't have the vaguest idea why, except I think it's religious but also just crazy. People try to blame the Arab/Israeli conflict for all these conflicts but I think that's absurd; Jew-hate long preceded that and is a cause of it. It would help though to tone down the anti-Israel rhetoric in the West. Somebody please tell the Brits. Anyway I don't know how to counter that. Who does? Antisemitism is insane actually. But, rationality, education, art and science, cultural and personal exchange, getting to know people as people: it can't hurt. We better pray. Says the atheist. I'm rambling because I can see the problems, not the solutions, if there are any; and sadly I think Weiseltier is right, we were basically lucky during the Cold War and have been since; lucky. Lucky is not a rational policy either.

- Sophia

March 31, 2012 at 11:20pm

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

"At that point your friend would be fully justified in picking up a chair and breaking it over the man's head." You think so? I don't. I don't think many DAs would see it that way either. Hitting the guy over the head in such circumstances would still be criminal assault. Besides, you and all the other hawks here misapprehend the nature of the threat. I completely understand why you do--if I lived in Israel or had family who did, I might feel the same way--but nevertheless you let your emotions stand in the way of seeing things as they are. Amedinijad is a clown, a loathsome, reprehensible clown but a clown nonetheless, and to interpret statements he makes so as to inflame the rabble in Tenhran as indicative of actual policy of the Iranian government is a mistake. The Iranians want a bomb not to anihilate Israel but to protect themselves against foreign invasion. The Ayotolas know full well that a first strike attack on Israel would mean the destruction of Itan, and they do not want that--ever. In other words, Iran CAN be deterred.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 11:49pm

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

"At that point your friend would be fully justified in picking up a chair and breaking it over the man's head." You think so? I don't. I don't think many DAs would see it that way either. Hitting the guy over the head in such circumstances would still be criminal assault. Besides, you and all the other hawks here misapprehend the nature of the threat. I completely understand why you do--if I lived in Israel or had family who did, I might feel the same way--but nevertheless you let your emotions stand in the way of seeing things as they are. Amedinijad is a clown, a loathsome, reprehensible clown but a clown nonetheless, and to interpret statements he makes so as to inflame the rabble in Tenhran as indicative of actual policy of the Iranian government is a mistake. The Iranians want a bomb not to anihilate Israel but to protect themselves against foreign invasion. The Ayotolas know full well that a first strike attack on Israel would mean the destruction of Itan, and they do not want that--ever. In other words, Iran CAN be deterred.

- AaronW

March 31, 2012 at 11:49pm

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

Aaron resorts to insults since he has no valid counter-argument. If I am a "hawk" because I insist on keeping the issue of Iranian genocidal threats against Israel and all Jews, what do you call someone like Aaron who wants to hide from the implication that his views support possible genocide? Being a noisy hawk is better than being a fake pacifist who has nothing no qualms about the possible destruction of a people.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 12:09am

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

Sophia, you might wish to acquaint yourself with the history of Jewry in Iran. Jews traditionally were oppressed there. They were forced to wear yellow patches of cloth and not tog out in the rain for fear that falling rain would wash from their bodies and contaminate the drinking water. (This didn't apply to Muslims.) In fact Iran was and remains very much an apartheid State. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews#Safavid_and_Qajar_dynasties_.281502.E2.80.931925.29

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 12:15am

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

Whom did I insult, arnon?

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 12:53am

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

Those you called "hawks."

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 12:59am

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

I see, it's "hawk" that got your knickers in a knot, arnon. First, I was not referring to any specific person when I used the term "Mid East hawks"--though I think the term arguably applies both to several TNR contributors and frequent blog commenters. Second, "hawk" is not pejorative. It merely refers to a person's belief in the justification for and efficacy of the use of military force. Many people happily refer to themselves as hawks, so it's hard for me to see how the term qualifies as an insult. If you don't consider yourself a hawk, arnon, that's quite all right with me. But there are others around here to who the term quite obviously applies.

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 1:11am

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

Hawk is applied more often to a person than to an argument. This is what is wrong with it. Why be coy about it, Aaron?

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 1:18am

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

I would say, however, that is you who won't admit any argument. To you anyone who questions either the feasibility of preventing the nuclearization of Iran or the risk that such nuclearization poses to Israel condones "possible genocide." How is it condoning possible genocide to question whether genocidal motivation exists on the part of one's adversaries? Either Iran would act to destroy Israel in the full knowledge that such action would trigger total retaliation on the part of both Israel and the US or it would not. I submit that it would not. That does not mean I favor genocide.

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 1:22am

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

I agree "hawk" is applied to a person--as I said. But that doesn't make it an insult. It is a term like "liberal" or "conservative" that applies to people who hold particular sets of beliefs. Ask Martin Peretz if he would describe himself as a hawk. I'd be very surprised if he said he didn't.

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 1:26am

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

AaronW: "Besides, you and all the other hawks here misapprehend the nature of the threat." I don't think so. I think that you and other pacifists misapprehend the nature of the Iranian regime. There already is a war between Israel and Iran and it is being fought by proxies, mostly Iranian proxies on Israel's border. I don't think that anybody here here exaggerates the danger of Iran having nuclear weapons just like Kennedy did not exaggerated the risk of Soviet ballistic missiles in Cuba. Please refer to indictment against Julius Streicher in Nuremberg. He was just like Ahmadinejad "a clown, a loathsome, reprehensible clown but a clown nonetheless, and to interpret statements he makes so as to inflame the rabble in Tenhran as indicative of actual policy of the Iranian government is a mistake" : "The tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 agreed. Part of the indictment against Streicher read: In the early days he was preaching persecution. As persecution took place he preached extermination and annihilation and, as millions of Jews were exterminated and annihilated, in the Ghettoes of the East, he cried out for more and more. The crime of Streicher is that he made these crimes possible, which they never would have been had it not been for him and for those like him." We are dealing with a rational regime, but just like Meir Dagan said in his interview on 60 minutes, "not our type of rational".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

April 1, 2012 at 3:45am

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

"Amedinijad is a clown, a loathsome, reprehensible clown but a clown nonetheless, and to interpret statements he makes so as to inflame the rabble in Tenhran as indicative of actual policy of the Iranian government is a mistake. " This may, or may not, be an accurate description of Ahmanijad but in relying on it by way of sustaining your scornful dismissal of the fears of "hawks" you have to ignore, disregard or pretend it doesn't exist, the record quoted by makover earlier in thread: "TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only". "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran." Or this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/03/khamenei-iran-help-confront-israel "Any statement by Iran's supreme leader, who has the final say on all matters of state, makes it all the more unlikely that Tehran will switch tack. Khamenei affirmed that Iran had assisted militant groups like the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas – a well-known policy, but one that Iranian leaders rarely acknowledge explicitly. "We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006, and in the 22-day war" between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip, he said. [-] "From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this," said Khamenei. He said Israel was a "cancerous tumour that should be cut and will be cut". ___________ BTW, aaron, I can do without your pseudo sympathetic noises such as "I completely understand why you do--if I lived in Israel or had family who did, I might feel the same way-". Considering that these exact kind of sceptical noises were murmured into Jewish ears from 1939 to 1944, and considering that everything that had been promised by the Nazis was adhered to, makes you seem like one of those indifferent folks the famous Niemoller's homily aimed at. In fact, you are proclaiming it out loud: They are coming for you and not for me, so why should I give a shit about it?

- noga1

April 1, 2012 at 9:04am

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

Thank you Malahat for linking to Marty Peretz's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. I remain concerned about Obama's timidity in facing up to Iran's nuclear threat and ongoing jihadist aggression not only because I am concerned for Israel. I also fear that Obama's foreign policy failures could become an election issue in the United States and contribute to Democratic defeat in November. We don't need more conservative justices on the Supreme Court and a rollback of the social safety net and other protections afforded to ordinary people by the American national state.

- amidut

April 1, 2012 at 9:56am

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

makover, I am not a pacificist; I am a pragmatist. If you can describe a military means to prevent Iran from building a working nuclear weapon--a means short of the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran either through all-out invasion or preemptive nuclear strike, neither of which is ever going to happen--then I'm all ears. If you could persuade me that such a limited war could achieve the desired effect, I'd be all for it. So far, however, no one has managed to do so. Of course, maybe it isn't such a limited war that you're talking about. Maybe you'd like somebody to invade Iran and kick the clerics out and install some sort of less belligerent regime. All right, then. Who is to provide the army for such an invasion? An international coalition? Forget it. Israel? Aside from the colossal logistical difficulties the IDF would face in mounting such an operation and the near-catastrophic diplomatic fallout that would ensue, Israel simply isn't populous enough to manage the post-invasion occupation of Iran. To avoid the kind of grinding insurgency that sapped the strength of the US in Iraq, you'd need at least--at least--three quarters of a million soldiers on the ground in Iran, 10% of Israel's population, and they'd need to be there for years. So, who does that leave? The United States of America. And here's the thing, Israel is a good friend of America's, but Israel is not part of America, nor are America's interests always in perfect alignment with Israel's. It is not in America's interest to take on another invasion/occupation in the Middle East or, for that matter, anywhere else, especially when its diplomats and defense and intelligence analysts perceive the risk of a nuclear strike on Israel as small. So what should America do? 1. Keep working the sanction/diplomacy angle. 2. Gather as much intelligence it can about Iran's nuclear program with the aim of uncovering targets for limited military intervention that will actually damage the program, and if such targets should become apparent, hit them by all means. 3. Make it crystal clear to the government of Iran that a nuclear attack on Israel will be treated as a nuclear attack on America and that retaliatory ICBMs will be launched against Iran with neither deliberation nor delay. What more do you want?

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 11:06am

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

"Aside from the colossal logistical difficulties the IDF would face in mounting such an operation and the near-catastrophic diplomatic fallout that would ensue, " Why would there be a "near-catastrophic diplomatic fallout " if Israel launches a defensive, pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear locations? Give me a reason why such a "fallout" is even remotely moral? Let's put aside your pragmatism for a second. It was this kind of "pragmatism" that stood between Jewish requests for the allies to bomb the railways to Auschwitz and the American commander-in-chief at the time. ____________ "especially when its diplomats and defense and intelligence analysts perceive the risk of a nuclear strike on Israel as small. " http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4209836,00.html "There is another interesting aspect to this story from an American point of view: In 2002, when President George W. Bush sought to embark on war in Iraq, US intelligence agencies provided him with all the “evidence” that Saddam Hussein is developing large quantities of nuclear and chemical weapons. Following the war, when no traces of such weapons were discovered in Iraq, a Congress inquiry found that US intelligence officials were so eager to satisfy their president that they cut corners and relied on unsubstantiated information. Given American media reports in recent days, one must wonder whether history is repeating itself. Could it be that the US intelligence community is providing President Obama with what he needs for political reasons – that is, information meant to curb an Israeli or American strike on Iran? " ___________ BTW, contrary to the Walt&Mearsheimer's fantasies, Israeli leadership DID NOT promote the Iraq invasion; it repeatedly tried to alert Bush Administarion that Iran was the primary problem in the Middle East, only it did so discreetly and quietly because, as we know, Israel is not in a position to antagonize its greatest and maybe only ally in this lousy and deeply morally-corrupt world.

- noga1

April 1, 2012 at 11:32am

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

Iran on it's way to killing Jews. I kid you not http://news.sky.com/home/video/world-news/video/16199746 A new baby polar bear makes people happy http://news.sky.com/home/video/world-news/video/16199454

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 12:18pm

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

AaronW: In previous posts I have linked to NYT Op Ed by Amos Yadlin. I have also linked to several articles by Ari Shavit from Haaretz, the favorite paper of J Street crowd describing the Israeli vs the US view of this issue. Please take a look. You listen and pay undue attention to all those who would like to rely on "deterrence". The link below is a good example of their logic. No, I don't advocate conquest of Iran. In the past Israel destroyed Iraqi nuclear reactor using 5 F-4 Phantoms with shorter range and lower carrying capacities than the current F16 and F15. No missiles, no submarines, no special forces. Although now the situation is different I am convinced that a realistic and workable plan is in the offing. US forces have never fought on behalf of Israel and I am confident that they never will. http://www.timesofisrael.com/analysts-shrug-off-claims-that-israel-plans-to-fly-via-azerbaijan-to-strike-iran/

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

April 1, 2012 at 12:24pm

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

I still insist there should be a massive campaign of informing the Iranian people of what is going on with the militaristic operations of the theocracy Iranian regime. Iranians are suffering economically, while their ayatollahs plant 55,000 missiles in Lebanon/Hizbollah, 10,000 missiles/rockets in Gaza/Hamas, help Syria in the Assad massacre, pursue nuclear weapons, pursue a worldwide campaign to kill Jews, are active in the blowups in Iraq. The Iranian people should know that it is imminent they will be bombed by USA and Israel, unless the Iranian theocracy comes to their senses. It is up to the Iranian people to seek peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 12:34pm

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

AaronW: “I am not a pacificist; I am a pragmatist.” How is this relevant to how we should deal with Iran? Pragmatism will never tell you if something should be opposed or supported. It will only assess the difficulties in achieving an aim. There is no moral principle associated with pragmatism. A pragmatist can be a Democrat, a Conservative, a Nazi, a liberal, an Islamist, a Jew or Christian or an anti-Semite. “If you can describe a military means to prevent Iran from building a working nuclear weapon--a means short of the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran either through all-out invasion or preemptive nuclear strike, neither of which is ever going to happen--then I'm all ears.” You keep saying this but no one proposed using nuclear weapons against Iran. This is a red herring meant to show what a moral individual you are. Now, the possibility of an invasion of Iran is an option and want be taken off the table whether you or I like it or not. You need to keep the regime of Ayatollahs guessing. You first asked, Aaron, if there was such a thing as a suicidal regime. You have been answered and you didn’t like the answer; hence all this postscript nonsense.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 12:41pm

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

It was supposed to be a discussion about Israel attacking Iran from USA bases in Azerbaijan. However the Israel Times is unable to make the connection. They are embarrassed though . These kind of technical problems caused the conflict between Keith Olberman and Al Gore's Current TV. http://www.timesofisrael.com/search/?q=Analysts+shrug+off+Israeli+plans+to+bomb+iran&submit= Try it and see if it works. Otherwise we dismiss as mis-information. And now I am going to watch the Miami tennis final via CBS. Finalists are #1 Novac Djocovic , he has asthma but he is número uno, and Andy Murray the Scot #4 the British great hope. Same as the Australian final early this year.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 1:05pm

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

Jaime: I always thought watching tennis is like watching paint dry. Am I wrong?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

April 1, 2012 at 1:15pm

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

Jaime: I didn't know what you were referring to. You are right, it's kind of funny: "However the Israel Times is unable to make the connection. They are embarrassed though . These kind of technical problems caused the conflict between Keith Olberman and Al Gore's Current TV."

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

April 1, 2012 at 1:18pm

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

Arnon, with respect, what makes you think I don't know about the history of Jews in Iran, or other aspects of Persian history for that matter? What does that have to do with anything? The whole Christian and Muslim worlds treated Jews badly, to the point of nearly wiping us out. So I think the threats have to be taken seriously but I also think there are better ways to deal with threats than by starting a war. And, what I don't know and what nobody does know is how seriously to take Iranian threats. Some people say they're the Gospel, other people say these rants are a Middle Eastern art form and shouldn't be taken seriously at all. I think it's somewhere in the middle probably. I also don't think the majority of Iranians are either backwards or interested in being blown up and totally destroyed. Plus, one hopes the mullahs will eventually (hopefully sooner rather than later) be replaced by a more modern government. I know a lot of Iranian people and they are not stupid nor are they medieval. They are good scientists, scholars, artists.... So, I think education and commerce and personal and cultural interaction is better than bombing don't you? Bombing stuff is an absolute LAST RESORT and also, if you start a war then you guarantee a war whereas sanctions, diplomacy, getting people to interact, etc, is NOT WAR and may avoid one. Also, it's very serious, the Great Games and subsequent attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq by the West, also on Ottoman Empire by the Brits. No wonder people are afraid. Don't you agree?

- Sophia

April 1, 2012 at 3:11pm

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

Also, this about Azerbaijian is interesting. The relationship between Iran and its neighbors is complicated (see Baluchistan) and also, there are so many tribal, ethnic and language groups within Iran it makes the US look boring and simple by comparison; the fact that the nation holds together at all is pretty amazing. This is a very complicated and interesting country.

- Sophia

April 1, 2012 at 3:14pm

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

Also, Iran is very old, very beautiful. I really hope nobody bombs it or vice-versa.

- Sophia

April 1, 2012 at 3:15pm

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

Sophia "Arnon, with respect, what makes you think I don't know about the history of Jews in Iran, or other aspects of Persian history for that matter? What does that have to do with anything?" If you knew the history of Jews in Persia you wouldn't be writing as you do. There is a long historical and religious context to the Iranian religious animus towards Jews.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 3:20pm

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

arnon, makeover described me as a pacifist--"pacifists like you," he said. I corrected his misapprehension so that makeover and others might understand that pacifism is not the only standpoint from which one might oppose preemptive military action against Iran.

- AaronW

April 1, 2012 at 5:51pm

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

makeover: I like watching tennis. I have my strong favorites. Since I have been watching for some time I know them well.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 6:23pm

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

Just thinking. Shaul Mofaz was elected head of the Kadima party. He was born in Teheran Iran. He came to Israel when he was 9 years old, he is now 63. He has a good possibility of becoming prime minister of Israel. Could he communicate better with Iran? Just wishful thinking.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 6:39pm

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

Of course there is a moral principle associated with pragmatism: Gains must outweigh losses, risk of harm must be outweighed by the likelihood of gain, the interests of third-parties must be taken into account, as must all foreseeable consequences. The alternative to pragmatism is theology masquerading as idealism, the belief that what is of moral importance to oneself is indeed of such sublime importance to the universe that pragmatic considerations can be ignored in its pursuit. And it often, almost always, and quickly becomes fanaticism, with disastrous consequences. Typical of the fanatic is to accuse the pragmatist of amorality. Of course. Because the pragmatist is unwilling to accept the sublime importance that the fanatic attaches to one thing or another, the moral absolute that will not admit of practical impossibility.

- roidubouloi

April 1, 2012 at 9:36pm

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

Preemptive military action against Iran is above all stupid. That alone is sufficient reason for opposing it.

- roidubouloi

April 1, 2012 at 9:46pm

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

roidubouloi “Of course there is a moral principle associated with pragmatism: Gains must outweigh losses, risk of harm must be outweighed by the likelihood of gain, the interests of third-parties must be taken into account, as must all foreseeable consequences.” This is not what C.S. Peirce the founder of pragmatism stated. Pragmatism was above all a heuristic device for discovery in science and logic. It was not a moral principal. The attempt to link pragmatism to morality and law came later and is beside the point since almost every term in your own definition above is liable to double and triple interpretation.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 10:40pm

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

At this point I don't support an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites for a number of reasons not least of which is the possibility that the consequences would be worse than waiting to see if sanctions will work or not. This is not based on pragmatic considerations. Most risk assessments have nothing to do with pragmatism. However, if the US and some other European country should also decide that air strikes on nuclear sites there will if nothing else put the Iranians on notice that they don't have a free hand to proceed. I used the plural strikes because while Israel could mount a single or in a pinch a double strike it will not be able to strike multiple times. In the meantime the best course is sanctions and other continued pressure on Iran such as the recent defense pledge by the administration to stand with the Gulf States in case of Iranian aggression.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 10:50pm

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

In 1994 Iran, Hezbollah and Syria were implicated in the bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. People killed were 76 and several hundred injured. The then Argentinian President Carlos Menem and the chief investigator obstructed the investigation. President Menem and the principal operator had Syrian ancestry. Today Carlos Menem is a senator in Argentina, and finally is being brought to justice. Read it here http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4210357,00.html As for Iranian war against Israel using proxies, let us not forget the war in 2006 Hezbollah/Lebanon, and 2008 Hamas/Gaza. Today, I repeat, Iran has refurbished Hezbollah/Lebanon with 55,000 missiles, and Hamas/Gaza 10,000 rockets/missiles. Just earlier this March, Islamic Jihad fired over 300 rockets at civilian populations in the Israeli Negev. When Egypt brokered a cease fire Iran,their patron, objected strongly. When Hamas and Abbas from the PA, were working a unity government, Iran succeeded in stoping such agreement. Earlier this year. It is clear that the theocratic regime in Iran should not acquire nuclear capabilities of any nature. It is necessary to inform the people of Iran that unless they stop their theocratic leaders of this lunacy, there will be utter destruction of their country. It is never too late to ask the people to take action.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 11:08pm

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

You are looking at the wrong sources. For moral pragmatism, see, e.g., John Dewey. Most risk assessments have nothing to do with pragmatism? What then, aesthetics? Definition of PRAGMATISM 1 : a practical approach to problems and affairs 2 : an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

- roidubouloi

April 1, 2012 at 11:08pm

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

Something is open to interpretation? Is this supposed to be a critique? Everything is open to interpretation. So what?

- roidubouloi

April 1, 2012 at 11:09pm

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

The numbers are killed 85 injured 300.

- JAIMECHUCH

April 1, 2012 at 11:13pm

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

Sorry, it was Peirce who founded pragmatism. John Dewey never had the kind of influence in his field that Peirce or even James did. In any case, we might agree on some outcomes, but not on philosophical principles. There has to be some basis of agreement to carry on a prolonged debate. Your law cum moral based criticism is not something I share.

- arnon1

April 1, 2012 at 11:20pm

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

No, Iran cannot be deterred from acquiring a bomb - in the long term, that is, if their will is set upon that goal. But it can be obliterated. It is absolutely defenseless against our (as in US) offensive capabilities in any event, & will be for many decades, if not centuries, into the future. If they should go totally nuts over there, & launch a nuclear attack against Israel, they have to know that they will be toast in a New York minute, if not from Israel's own nuclear forces, then from ours. Or both. Are they really that irrational? Do they really have that great a death-wish? I doubt it. Let's calm down folks. Iran is not on a suicide mission. They want to be big boys in their neighborhood. We survived a long cold war against a USSR which had a much closer match to our (as in US) capabilities than does the pitiful bankrupt state of Iran; against a USSR which had something much more resembling parity with our destructive capabilities than does the backward counry of Iran, which has a nuclear force that is, at best, presently only a gleam on the eyes of its mullahs. Much more of a threat to our (as in USA; maybe you defintion of "our" differs) interests is a fragile Israeli coalition government which may be tempted into intemperate action for reasons having to do primarily with internal politics, & not to any truly existential threat. I hope ferverently that the US government & its leaders have the wisdom, strength of will & foresight to keep us (as in USA) from being party to a hysterical over-reaction to the phanthom of the Iranian nuclear threat.

- Haole45

April 1, 2012 at 11:52pm

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

"In any case, we might agree on some outcomes, but not on philosophical principles. There has to be some basis of agreement to carry on a prolonged debate. Your law cum moral based criticism is not something I share. ________________________ That you are not a pragmatist is quite clear, although what other foundation grounds your various claims here is obscure to me at least. That we have little in common is also quite clear. And I cannot even fathom what "law cum moral based criticism" would be. Seems made up on the spur of the moment. But none of that gives you license to mischaracterize that with which you do not agree. For example, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Pragmatism First published Sat Aug 16, 2008 Pragmatism was a philosophical tradition that originated in the United States around 1870. The most important of the ‘classical pragmatists’ were Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952)." That is the very first sentence of the Stanford article. By the time you are writing Dewey out of the history of American pragmatism to justify your incorrect claim that pragmatism is devoid of moral content, you should just give up. James also discussed the moral implications of pragmatism.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2012 at 12:24am

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

"John Dewey never had the kind of influence in his field that Peirce or even James did." arnon, while admittedly it is hard to quantify a person's influence in his field, your statement quoted above is, within such limits, completely wrong. John Dewey is the quintessential American pragmatist philosopher. Ask any student of philosophy who the foremost pragmatists were, and he will answer, "Dewey and James, though James was really more of a psychologist." I know this because my best friend--the same friend I mentioned in my barroom anecdote, as it happens--did an independent study with Richard Rorty, the foremost contemporary proponent of pragmatism on a pragmatist reading of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. As for your contention that pragmatism lacks any moral element, all I can say is that many others, not least Rorty, would offer strenuous and articulate disagreement. Rorty--and I think Dewey, though I haven't read him--argues that pragmatism is the surest route to the truth, including moral truth. In a book that I have read, Richard Rorty effectively dismantles moral relativism from a pragmatist perspective and argues that though there is no such thing as absolute moral truth there are such things as morally correct and morally incorrect choices and that pragmatist principles can help guide us to the morally correct action. For example, I, a self-proclaimed pragmatist, declare that it would be an evil of almost unparalleled depravity for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv (moral judgement #1) However, my pragmatic moral sense also tells me that inasmuch the above is only a potential evil, it would be unjust for either Israel or the US to preemptively strike Iran with nuclear weapons of their own, even though to do so would solve the problem of Iran's nuclear capability definitively. (moral judgement #2) "Wait a minute," you say, "no one here is advocating a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran." And of course you would be correct to a degree, except that when people argue, as some here have, that for Iran merely to possess a nuclear weapon is morally and practically equivalent to Iran's actually putting such a weapon to use, then you're on a slippery slope to nuking Iran preemptively. If Iran's possession of the bomb is maximally evil and absolutely unacceptable under any imaginable circumstance, then there is absolutely no action that would not be justified in order to prevent that evil from coming to pass. Let me be plain: Iran's pursuit of the bomb is evil, especially in light of its leader's statements advocating the use of such a weapon against the people of Israel. I believe that the limited use of force to forestall such evil would be morally justified. I just don't see that it is practically justified, at least not at the present time.

- AaronW

April 2, 2012 at 1:01am

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

Aaron: “while admittedly it is hard to quantify a person's influence in his field, your statement quoted above is, within such limits, completely wrong. John Dewey is the quintessential American pragmatist philosopher.” This is overstated. If there is a “quintessential” American pragmatist it would be William James and not John Dewey. I don’t know about quantifying an intellectual’s importance, you can get a good idea about the philosopher’s influence by how subsequent thinkers relate to his ideas. One way that this can be done is by counting how many books and articles are devoted to the notions of say John Dewey. Another more artificial way is by counting citations and reference in a bibliographical log. In each case John Dewey is not as impressive as say William James or C.S. Peirce. Peirce has been the most important not only because he founded the filed but because he introduced the world to semiotics. Pragmatics takes place within semiotics: ‘semiosis is an irreducibly triadic process where an object, logically determines or influences a sign which then influences an interpretation (interpretant) which is itself a sign leading to further interpretants.’ John Locke I believe had used the term semiosis earlier somewhere, but it was Perice who gave it the meaning held by semiotician. The French linguist Saussure also had a theory of signs which affected the field of Linguistics. Today this field of study has a number of branches namely, Semantics (the study of signs and its relation to referents), Syntactics, (relations among signs) and Pragmatics (relation between signs and the effects they have on the people who use them). This is where the formal importance of Peirce’s thought resides. William James too had a huge influence in the fields of psychology and a more moderate but still considerable one in philosophy itself. John Dewey is a minor figure compared these other too. There is one area of Dewey’s thought that I value highly and that his aesthetic theories. He introduces there the notion of “art as experience" which is a valuable notion.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 9:07am

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

Ah, well. I seems that Richard Rorty, Stanford and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are all misinformed. arnon must write in and let the latter two know. Here from the IEP article on pragmatism: "The final member of the classical pragmatist triumvirate is John Dewey (1859-1952), who had been a graduate student at Johns Hopkins during Peirce’s brief tenure there. In an illustrious career spanning seven decades, Dewey did much to make pragmatism (or “instrumentalism,” as he called it) respectable among professional philosophers. Peirce had been persona non grata in the academic world; James, an insider but no pedant, abhorred “the PhD Octopus” and penned eloquent lay sermons; but Dewey was a professor who wrote philosophy as professors were supposed to do—namely, for other professors. His mature works—Reconstruction in Philosophy (1920), Experience and Nature (1925), and The Quest for Certainty (1929)—boldly deconstruct the dualisms and dichotomies which, in one guise or another, had underwritten philosophy since the Greeks. According to Dewey, once philosophers give up these time-honoured distinctions—between appearance and reality, theory and practice, knowledge and action, fact and value—they will see through the ill-posed problems of traditional epistemology and metaphysics. Instead of trying to survey the world sub specie aeternitatis, Deweyan philosophers are content to keep their feet planted on terra firma and address “the problems of men.” Dewey emerged as a major figure during his decade at the University of Chicago, where fellow pragmatist G.H. Mead (1863-1931) was a colleague and collaborator. After leaving Chicago for Columbia University in 1904, Dewey became even more prolific and influential; as a result, pragmatism became an important feature of the philosophical landscape at home and abroad. Dewey, indeed, had disciples and imitators aplenty; what he lacked was a bona fide successor—someone, that is, who could stand to Dewey as he himself stood to James and Peirce. It is therefore not surprising that by the 1940s—shortly after the publication of Dewey’s Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (1938)—pragmatism had lost much of its momentum and prestige." Contra Arnon, Dewey was the most influential of the three, not the least. _____________________ Here is an interesting title and precis: Just War Thinking: Morality and Pragmatism in the Struggle Against Contemporary Threats Eric Patterson 2007 Just War Thinking (2007) reexamines the just war tradition from a contemporary realist perspective, arguing that a political ethic of responsibility should motivate the contemporary application of military force by states in order to protect international security and human life. Patterson addresses hotly debated subjects like humanitarian intervention, assassination, and the war on terrorism, as well as the need to develop principles for jus post bellum (justice after war). The book also discusses the influence of postmodernism on normative decisionmaking and the evolving relationship between morality and pragmatism in foreign policy. Imagine that, an entire book devoted to pragmatism, morality, and the very topic, just war, being discussed right here. Seems that others also think that pragmatism bears directly on the morality of war. There are no shortage of references to pragmatism and morality. Might arnon be the one who is misinformed?

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2012 at 11:44am

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

"The final member of the classical pragmatist triumvirate is John Dewey (1859-1952), who had been a graduate student at Johns Hopkins during Peirce’s brief tenure there." "Final member" is right. Article obviously written by a student of Rorty who is himself wildly overrated though interesting to read sometimes.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 11:59am

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

"classical triumvirate" There were later pragmatists, Quine, Rorty, et alia, who are not regarded as "classical." And so? This effort to re-write history in order to support a false claim is beyond silly. In its commitment to utility and outcome, pragmatism is profoundly entwined with morality. Argument to the contrary is as unmoored as the original claim was incorrect.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2012 at 12:03pm

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

John Dewey is to Peirce as the German philosopher Christian Wolff is to Leibnitz. Roid, you always sound like you are in a court of law trying to win a case. There is nothing to win here; it's just a forum argument. In any case, since you brought up Quine, both he an Rorty were anchored in analytic and not pragmatic philosophy. Rorty conversion to pragmatism came late with his publication of "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (published in 1979)" I remember reading it when it first came out. Did you read it? I welcomed but was never fully convinced by his turn to pragmatism.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 12:54pm

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

It was you who made the claim that pragmatism was unrelated to morality in response to Aaron's pragmatic argument against attacking Iran. Were you trying to win a case in a court of law? If you don't any longer want to defend your claim, it is fine with me, but you really have no basis for complaint when you advance arguments against what other people say here and then find yourself met with counterarguments. I read some Quine in college. By 1979 I was practicing law and had stopped thinking about it.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2012 at 1:56pm

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

roidubouloi "It was you who made the claim that pragmatism was unrelated to morality in response to Aaron's pragmatic argument against attacking Iran." Yes, it was and I stand by my view. A pragmatist talking about morality is like a libertarian talking about chastity: it ain't serious talk

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 5:02pm

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

Rorty was trained in analytic philosophy at the University of Chicago, but certainly by the time he left Princeton for UVa in the 80s, he labeled his own brand of philosophy "pragmatism." To be sure, he brought his analytic background to bear as well as readings of non-analytic philosophers such as Hegel, Marx and Husserl, but it's awfully cheeky of you to suggest that pragmatism wasn't Rorty's area when he himself claimed that it was.

- AaronW

April 2, 2012 at 5:23pm

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

I said the Rorty came late to it and that his pragmatic philosophy didn't seem to me to be the real thing. (Along the way to pragmatism he also picked up many themes from post-Modernist philosophy. I did say that quine was primarily an analytic philosopher.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 5:47pm

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

I am looking through some of my notes on Dewey and i could make pretty good case that in aesthetics at least and probably in his metaphysics that he too was not a straight pragmatist. Just because a thinker calls himself an X doesn't mean that we should accept it automatically. It's the discrepancies between what one thinks he is doing and what he is actually doing that make a thinker interesting.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 6:33pm

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

Well, arnon, since you know so much more about Dewey's and the pragmatists endeavors than they did, maybe we need to suggest to the historians of philosophy that you take Dewey's place in the triumvirate of classical pragmatist philosophers. To help you prepare, here is an introductory essay, from Stanford again, on Dewey's pragmatic understanding of moral philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/ Also, since you will allow that William James was both a pragmatist and influential, perhaps you would enjoy his essay "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life." Just another libertarian (or did you mean libertine? not the same) talking about chastity.

- roidubouloi

April 2, 2012 at 8:29pm

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

A modern libertarian is the late 20th and early 21str century version of the 18th century libertine. For the rest I suggest you read less articles and more books by the thinkers you say you love so much.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 8:52pm

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

As for pragmatic morality, btw, they searched for it but did they ever find it? What was their model of the "moral man?" A pragmatist like them? It is an interesting subject, though, but it's useless to discuss it with a lawyer who is just trying to win a case.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 8:57pm

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

This isn't aimed at any poster here: Pragmatic moral values: From the link above: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-moral/#1 "Metaethics of Value Judgments in General" "Dewey held that value judgments express propositions that are subject to empirical testing and verification. But they are not merely descriptive; their essential function is to guide conduct. Value judgments can be both empirically warranted and action-guiding because they have an instrumental form. They say that if something were done, then certain consequences would follow, which would be liked or valued. Propositions of this form can be tested. The point of making such propositions is to decide upon a course of action that will solve a problem, where the proposition itself is part of the means by which the action is brought about (LJP 16–17). To locate value judgments within Dewey's psychology, we first need to understand the distinction between valuing and evaluation, and Dewey's notions of desire, taste, and interest. We will then consider the instrumental function of value judgments and their experimental verification." Surely one could discuss moral questions without needing to introduce the social sciences. Notice the need to introduce "the scientific method" when discussing if its wrong to kill your mother. For the pragmatists morality can only be accounted for through the study of "man's nature." each new discovery in psychology or "brain biology today" would change their conception of moral man. This is short jump to the notion of "situational ethics." Lots of juicy an interesting questions here, but better left for another day with posters whose intellectual curiosity is stronger than their egos.

- arnon1

April 2, 2012 at 9:06pm

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

Dewey's (and Rorty's) elevation of empirical testing to a central role in the search for moral truth has nothing to do with the social sciences. At least for Rorty (as I said, I haven't read Dewey) it's much more fundamental than that. For Rorty all truths, moral and otherwise derive their truth-value from empirical tests, and by "empirical tests" Rorty, to put it very crudely, means lived experience. Truth, for Rorty, is a function of human beings living in the world, of what works and what doesn't, and his description of morality applies just as much to Kalahari Bushmen--nary a social scientist among them--as it does to us.

- AaronW

April 2, 2012 at 11:58pm

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

Meaningful discussion of pragmatism is hardly possible until one can get past factually incorrect and self-contradictory claims such as these: "Pragmatism was above all a heuristic device for discovery in science and logic. It was not a moral principal. The attempt to link pragmatism to morality and law came later and is beside the point . . . At this point I don't support . . . for a number of reasons not least of which is the possibility that the consequences would be worse than waiting . . . This is not based on pragmatic considerations. Most risk assessments have nothing to do with pragmatism." Whether this sort of inconsistency -- both internal and with the subject of pragmatism as understood by its expositors -- is the result of ego or something else, I couldn't say.

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2012 at 12:26am

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

AaronW: “Dewey's (and Rorty's) elevation of empirical testing to a central role in the search for moral truth has nothing to do with the social sciences.” Rorty is a post-modernist who eschews foundational philosophical notions. He invokes Nietzsche, Foucault and other modern philosophers he is at best a neo-pragmatist, and not a classic pragmatist like John Dewey. For Dewey, testing for moral truths is not the same as testing for truth in the physical sciences since it involves human beings. The disciplines that study man (psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, etc.) play a decisive role in the search for moral truths since we need to understand the nature of mankind before one can thinking about human moral issues.

- arnon1

April 3, 2012 at 10:33am

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

This thread is probably dead, and so I'm going to try to say this more concisely than I might otherwise, but you seem to be arguing several related points that are at least partially in conflict with one another. The are as follows: 1. Pragmatism, as a philosophy, is silent on morality. 2. John Dewey (and Richard Rorty) does not represent pragmatism. 3. John Dewey's moral philosophy was flawed. If you're wrong on point number 2, which I think you must acknowledge you are, then points 1 and 3 contradict one another. Now, to tackle point 3 on its own terms, I think your understanding that Dewey's morality relies upon the physical and scientific study of man is incorrect. "Empirical study" simply means observation and encompasses everything from personal experience, to legend, to history, etc. Dewey does not require imposition of experimental science to answer the question, "Is it wrong to kill your mother?" Dewey would say, "Of course it is wrong to kill your mother. We all know this. But if you ask me as a philosopher to explain how we arrive at this certainty that it is wrong to kill one's mother, I will answer that such certain knowledge derives from the accumulation of particular instances of matricide in human experience and the adverse consequences that stemmed therefrom." You are correct, for Dewey and the other pragmatists, there is no absolute moral standard. They are moral (and epistemological and metaphysical) empiricists. They believe that empirical experience is the source of all truth moral and otherwise. You are welcome to disagree with them and to dismiss their moral philosophy as "situational ethics", which I'll admit it sort of is though I'm not sure why this should be a pejorative. But in any event, you'd be wrong to suggest that they do not address morality at all.

- AaronW

April 4, 2012 at 9:19am

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

adding to this cold thread that I just read, a second "Thank you Malahat for linking to Marty Peretz's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal." (thank you amidut, for that quote) Adding that I continue to question the rationality of any 'religion' which celebrates, e.g. Ashura, martyrdom with young men on parade in public, lashing their backs until the blood flows. Good thing Iran is less than 50% Shi'a Persian...and time for me to clean up yet another hairball instead of dwelling on the persistence of Jew-hatred. Happy Pesach to anyone still reading here - praying for Ten Plagues to "have Israel's back" because Obama sure does not even understand the meaning of "Have Your Back".

- K2K

April 4, 2012 at 12:15pm

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

I am still reading this thread (which somehow seems to have turned itself into the "What would John Dewey do" thread. Why? I guess for the same reason smarter, more learned people than I are still posting comments. I have yet to find a reason to regard myself as anything other than an ethical nihilist.

- skahn

April 4, 2012 at 4:44pm

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

OK, I am revived. I satisfied my food addiction, collected eggs from the hens, fed/watered/petted the pullets, and I am ready to put anyone with insomnia into a stupor. Let's see, like the tailor in the Grimm's fairy tale who killed nine [flies], I will strive to kill this moribund thread. The empirical universe exists. Doubtful anything else does. [Soundtrack Peggy Lee singing “Is That All There is?"]. We (sort of – quite amazing, if you think about it) discovered/invented science (empiricism) though a quite significant percentage of our population (not surprising) mostly reject it. We are top of food chain. Combine weasels/wolverines, rats, fire ants, Great White Sharks, grizzly bears, viruses, starlings, coyotes, etc.; add a dash of cunning masquerading as intelligence. Voila! Satan, Loki, Coyote, Raven, etc. Who else could have invented the genocide thing? [Ants, plague plague viruses, should get some credit, though.] We can care. Like most mammals, we care for our young. We are capable of empathy. (Often very selective.) Voila! Buddha, Moses, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, Jr., Golden Rule, etc. We have no free will. (I have no choice but to believe this.) We evolved from lower primates. Perhaps the only “intelligent” species in the universe – but how would we ever know? Our brain is still muchly lizard. Our culture developed, though we need social “chains and snow tires” as we easily slip when the weather is warlike, scapegoat -like, genocide prone. We develop by culling. We are trying to exterminate fundamentalism. The pesticides we use are highly toxic and often take out those who apply them. We develop by nudging each other. We've nudged ourselves away from superstition, epidemics, racism, genocides, overpopulation. Takes centuries. Millenia. It's fairly common (though disputed) to speak of “dark ages” (such as the period after the fall of the Roman Empire). Few people in a dark age woke up and said, “Hey, I am living in a dark age. That really sucks.” [Kudos to noticeable exceptions such as Roger Williams, Samuel Clemens, Ambrose Bierce, George Orwell, etc.] Most people in dark ages wake up and say something such as, “Boy/girl am I lucky to live in modern civilization.” After the Singularity, our successors may look on our rubble/records and sigh, “Boy/girl/AI” those poor suckers sure lived in the Dark Ages.”

- skahn

April 4, 2012 at 6:45pm

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

AaronW “This thread is probably dead, and so I'm going to try to say this more concisely than I might otherwise, but you seem to be arguing several related points that are at least partially in conflict with one another. The are as follows: 1. Pragmatism, as a philosophy, is silent on morality. 2. John Dewey (and Richard Rorty) does not represent pragmatism. 3. John Dewey's moral philosophy was flawed.” Aaron, you often seem to get details wrong. Your summary tells me how you read not what I said or meant.

- arnon1

April 4, 2012 at 10:00pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close