As Iran, perennial instigator in the Middle East, contemptuously seeks to create a new Persian Empire, it’s arch-nemesis, Israel, has not-too quietly announced that it will be up to any challenge.
With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.
[snip]
The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear-capable submarines already in Israel’s fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.
The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst.
Now comes news that “Israel has appointed a top general to oversee a war against Iran, prompting speculation that it is preparing for possible military action against Tehran’s nuclear program.”
Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, Israel’s air force chief, will be overall commander for the “Iran front,” military sources told the London Sunday Telegraph.
[snip]
“Israel is becoming extremely concerned now with what they see as Iran’s delaying tactics,” said Israeli Iran analyst Meir Javedanfar. “[The planners] think negotiations are going nowhere, and Iran is becoming a major danger for Israel. Now they are getting ready for living with a nuclear Iran or letting the military take care of it.”
The prospect of Israel “living with” a nuclear Iran appears remote. Last week, Giora Eiland, Israel’s former national security adviser, told reporters that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would “sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel.”
Israel striking first still seems pretty remote. As the article concedes:
Officially, Israel stresses that it does not want to take the lead in tackling Iran and that a massive campaign of air strikes would be best led by the United States, which has forces in Iraq that are much closer to Iranian targets.
Still, Israel has basically given Iran something to think about, and announced to the world that it won’t sit around twiddling its thumbs while the U.N. issues threatening letters drafting during high tea. At least some have clearly heard the message. Since Israel arguably faces the greatest danger from a nuclear-armed Iran, lesser action should not have been expected.
For the rest of the world, and particularly the U.N., thumb-twiddling has sufficed for quite some time now. It should be readily apparent, however, that talk is cheap.
A top aide to Iran’s supreme leader declared on Monday that Tehran did not fear being taken to the Security Council over its nuclear programme and warned that if the UN imposed an oil embargo world prices would go above 100 dollars a barrel.
Ali Akbar Nateq-Nuri, one of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s closest advisors, dismissed as “ridiculous” some suggestions from Europe aimed at persuading Tehran to end uranium enrichment to avoid being summoned by the Security Council.
That was from two years ago, and nothing has really changed. The absence of Saddam Hussein was bound to lead to a power vaccuum and such posturing by Iran. Introduction of nuclear weapons into the mix, however, makes Iranian intransigence intolerable. That the world seems to be either incapable or unwilling to face this challenge head on gives Iran extra incentive to thumb its nose at sanction threats. Israel’s latest reminders that it will not go gently into that good night, however, may alter Iran’s plan somewhat. Then again it could also hasten the end game.
To put this all in perspective, the recent conflict in Lebanon appears to me to have been not just a test of Israel’s convential military, but a “poisoning of the well” moment designed to ramp up the media attacks on Israel. Like the U.N., the media are already pre-disposed to find fault with Israel first, so Iran (via Syria and Hezbollah) exploited the slick media operations already in place to direct world opprobrium towards Israel. Iran gets a lot of mileage, therefore, out of an attack by Israel (of course), but more importantly from any move by Israel that can be portrayed as pushing the envelope.
Such media manipulation is directed towards the Western press. But it has much more meaning in the Middle East where antipathy towards Israel can be tapped in an effort to garner the support of Muslim nations for Iran (of whom they are not generally supportive now). Meanwhile, Iran continues its march towards nuclear arms unabated, all the while seeking to create a pretext for unleashing them on Israel.
When Cato the Elder uttered those famous words in the Senate — “‘ceterum censeo delendam esse Carthaginem’ (commonly referred to as Carthago delende est) which translates as ‘Besides which, my opinion is that Carthage must be destroyed’” — he was banging the war drum in order to take out Carthage before it became too powerful. I don’t advocate the same path here, despite the title of my post. But there is a somewhat similar situation at hand, and something needs to be done besides sending threatening letters. If the media could drop its credulity with respect to Israel’s enemies (who all too often are our own), that would be a step in the right direction. I’m truly undecided as to whether Israel’s latest manoeuvers are helpful or not. What will be the most productive course of action, short of war, is certainly the multi-billion dollar question of the day. That the current crew of world leaders will answer that question before it’s too late, I’m afraid, is not very likely. I honestly pray to God that I’m wrong.
So do I. Somehow the notion of W showing up to overlook Tehran, then mumbling out at the news conference: “Veni Vidi er ah um Vincent!” is less than inspiring.
All humor aside, Iran the state vs. Iran as Mamoud would have to be pretty suicidal to really think that attacking Israel conventionally or unconventionally is a good idea. They know full well that a) Israel’s response will be swift and unmeasured; b) The United States’ response will be swift and unmeasured; c) By the time the UN comes up with a powerless word of protest, the game will have been lost; d) Oil sales are not sustained if your customers can’t take delivery.
I hesitate to say they’re not crazy enough, because clearly at least one of them is, but I am willing to believe they’re not that stupid. I haven’t quite figured out what the real game behind the rhetoric is, yet, but I’m pretty sure there is one.
-Gil
It sounds like you’re sitting in the same place that I am, Gil. I’m pretty sure that Iran won’t blatantly attack Israel, but not positive. And who knows what they’ll use proxies to do.
IMHO, the current Iranian plan is gather Muslim nation support behind them while keeping the U.N. (and the West) at bay. If something should change, however, in a way that makes mutually assured destruction seem plausible to those who would commit suicide against their enemies anyway, I’m not confident that someone won’t push the button.
In 2002 I went grocery shopping at my local supermarket. As I wended my way between the aisles, I happened to chance across the eyes of another shopper who looked like she expected to to be taken out into the parking lot and shot at any moment. I say I encountered her eyes, because that is all I could see – chestnut brown, very frightened eyes, wildly peering out from below a burkha.
Now, I live in a state that is so deeply red that if you mention the GOP to someone, they get a puzzled expression and ask you “What’s a gawp?” Nonetheless, the reception this woman received in the market was cool at best, openly hostile at worst. I must admit, it took me a second to consider the situation, but then I decided – this is America. She is as free as I am. If I can do my shopping in torn jeans and a T-shirt, she can do her shopping in a burkha. That’s nobody’s business but her own.
As her cart passed mine, I nodded to her and I smiled. I will never forget the way those eyes lit up. You’d think I’d asked to see pictures of her grandkids – just because I’d treated her like a human being.
I will disagree with you, politely, regarding what Mahmoud’s plan may be. I do not believe it can be to gather the support of Muslims. His violent, racist, insane public rantings are making it difficult to shop. At the supermarket, or at the offshore oil platform. He’s got something else in mind – I still don’t know what, perhaps he hopes to draw the USA and China into a war over oil – but gathering a broad Muslim support base is not his plan.
Gil,
You may be right, but I might posit that Mahmoud may feel that all his rhetoric is helping him to gather Muslim support. While possibly most are alienated, enough rally around him, maybe even a majority, in his neck of the woods that he believes it is working.
It is not as if violent, racist, insane public rantings haven’t helped people gather support over the last 100 years at times. The Middle East seems particularly susceptible to that kind of thing to me. Remember, Saddam was hailed at the end of the first Gulf War as a hero who had fended off the US while spouting insane rhetoric. I wouldn’t be so sure about your thesis. Though I am glad you smiled at the woman in the burkha.
Which is exactly why I suggested it was the support of “Muslim nations” that he was seeking, not Muslims in general. If you poke around ASHC a bit, or if you already have, I think you will find an awareness that not all Muslims are fanatical anti-U.S., anti-Israel jihadists.
What Iran needs is cover from other Muslim nations, particularly in the Middle East. As it stands now, Iran is not much appreciated in most of the Middle East. Uniting them all behind a general hatred of Israel, and a willingness to “wipe them off the map” gives Iran a great deal of leverage with respect to the regional politics. Regional politics plays into oil prices; oil prices affects global politics; knee bone connected to the thigh bone, etc.
If something should change, however, in a way that makes mutually assured destruction seem plausible to those who would commit suicide against their enemies anyway, I’m not confident that someone won’t push the button.
I agree with you on this. I’m not confident about either side of the equation, suicidals or pre-emptivists (to badly coin a term).
I have seen that, and I appreciate it. If my burkha story implied otherwise, I apologize. I’ve been waiting four years for a time to tell it – maybe this wasn’t it.
From the distant perspective of the region I have, it seems that a willingness to wipe them off the map has not prevented Iran from being not much appreciated, and that the political leverage gained is recalcitrant at best.
That could certainly be wrong – but if Mahmoud wants to the cover of Muslim nations, and his rhetoric hasn’t gotten that result, he should change the rhetoric. He has not. That makes me question if alliance building is his intent.
Otherwise, as stated previously, you and I are sitting in pretty much the same place.
Gil,
I like the Burkha story, glad to hear it. I might use it in a post in fact. It is easy to get a little touchy on this, because it is all too often assumed (I think you know some people I might be talking about) that concern about the problems in the Muslim world, a willingness to consider military force, etc., that is often characterized as hawkishness is really a cover for prejudice against Muslims, an unwarranted fear of them or a lack of caring about the impact of such policies on Muslims.
I really appreciate your comments here (and at QandO where I see you fairly often) and know that you understand we might disagree with you at times, but it isn’t out of any desire on our part for hegemony, imperialist aims or just plain old warmongering against the “other.” You have been fair minded in the past when we have disagreed, and I appreciate that. I always appreciate it when people criticize my reasoning (which is certainly fallible, I just like to think less fallible than many;>)and understand I may just be wrong, not morally addled.
Thanks.
I
If I thought it was, I wouldn’t bother to debate you.
I also appreciate it when people criticize my reasoning – particularly about conclusions I have reached that I would like to have proven wrong. Such as that the president of Iran cares nothing for either support or condemnation by his region, or internationally, in his quest to destroy Israel. I’d like to be proven wrong on that. Very much.
Lance, you and the the other folks here at ASHC have been both fair minded and reasonable. I am grateful for your willingness to dialogue.
-Gil
No offense taken, Gil. I liked your story. In fact, I was hoping someone would bring up the distinction between Muslim individuals and Muslim nations. I thought that Omar would be the one, but your comment worked just as well.
Right back at you, Gil. I hope we continue to see you around. You provide thoughtful commentary.
Speaking of Omar, does anyone have the number for his haberdasher?
Sorry, I haven’t been at the keys today. Excellent points by all. Gil, thank you for bringing up the very important, and certainly understressed, difference between so-called “Muslim” nations and Muslim people. As I’ve pointed out here and on other blogs, Islam is as diverse as Christianity or Judaism. Muslims are not a monolithic people. We have liberal minded US or Canadian Muslims, moderates in Turkey or SE Asia, hardliners in the old “inner core” of Islam in the Middle East, and everything in between those positions. My attitudes are certainly not going to be identical to those of a Salafist from Saudi or Pakistan and those of a Malaysian or Indonesian Muslim most likely won’t mirror those of, say, a German Muslim. I’m glad that this difference is appreciated by most of those who comment here and by my co-bloggers. It’s a very hard message to get across and I’ve absolutely given up on some of the more, shall we say, determined “hawks” out there. Read some of the comments in these sections for a little view into the minds of the “hawks.”
Cheers to all of you guys for helping to spread the message that Muslims aren’t all like Ahmenijad and his type!
Gil, hmmm… although I haven’t exactly got my clothiers on speed dial, I definitely recommend the following (WARNING: shameless capitalist plug ahead, approach with caution)
http://www.menswearhouse.com/
http://www.eddiebauer.com/eb/default.asp
Or, for the more adventurous:
http://www.harrods.com/Cultures/en-GB/Categories/Fashion.htm/CS_BreadCrumbs/HarrodsComCatalogGB%3b002For_Him(HarrodsComCatalog)%3bMenswear(HarrodsComCatalog)
http://www.marksandspencer.com/IWCatSectionView.process?Section_Id=7
or for the really adventurous:
http://www.hilalplaza.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=11
http://www.al-hijaab.com/scripts/prodList.asp?idcategory=49
http://www.shukronline.com/mens.html
The last one is probably my favorite for modern Islamic clothing.
Mm, yes, QandO. I haven’t been there long and I have thought more than once of leaving that place behind since so little discussed ever seems to come to concensus; but I keep going back for one plain and simple reason. It is such a useful ideologic crucible. A place where one can subject their ideas and odd passing notions to the fires of scathing ridicule.
What is left is much purer as a result. A tempered argument not easily pierced. That has application far outside the blogosphere.
-Gil
Thomas Paine, speaking of Thomas Jefferson: (paraphrased) “We did not always agree; but when he disagreed with me, he did so as eloquently as any man could.”