Iran and Israel at War

[Reverend Joe]

DA, you really need to be less leading with your titles. The first thing I did this morning was turn on the Guild, and this was the first thread I saw. I damn near had a heart attack, thinking that an official state of war had been declared.

Come to find out, you're talking about a rumour of a possibility of a theoretical war.

[Fragony]

Its unstable because of outsiders trying to make it unstable...

Sorry sir this is world politics, honesty is at the end of the hall, first door after the printer

[FactionHeir]

Is that where I can find Obama?

[Adrian II]

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency [..]

Oops..

The Messrs Shavit of this world never, ever retire from Mossad. And they never, ever openly discuss genuine Israeli foreign and military policy issues.

Have a nice day with the article though.

[Fragony]

Not sure Factionheir but that's the very printer that gave him his complexion ;)

[FactionHeir]

So, any comments on my article?

[Tribesman]

Well Lemur , to answer your question with a question .
How many feckwit genocidal maniacs have they supported ? how many murdering terrorist gobshites have they helped?
If the answer is not quite as many as other places then perhaps the claim that they ain't as bad as the others may hold water ...but it looks like you is holding a sieve on this one

[Fragony]

So, any comments on my article?

No comment but if you are Seymour Hersh as in ' my article' someone probably wants a word with you

[FactionHeir]

Damn, i've been busted. Time to hide.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be. The regional history of fighting Israel whether it made a lick of practical sense or not doesn't encourage. "It's not whether you win or lose, all that matters is fight the Jews" leads to some depressing lines of thought.

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

They use proxies to continue the feud, because the last thing most of these governments want is a solution to the Palestinian problem. Israel continues the feud because it benefits enormously from subsidies. The West keeps excusing Israel from its international obligations because we're self-hating Gentiles. Everyone is happy, and the casualty rates kept acceptable to the purpose. Waving willies is part of the game.

Iran wants to be the regional power. The Arab nations are uneasy about this, especially since the invasion of Iraq has already tilted the balance very firmly toward Iran. If we stopped demonising the Iranian Republic and took advantage of their desires, we might find a valuable ally to help stabilise Iraq, offset the fundamentalist Wahabism of the Saudis and help guarantee Israel's borders. We managed to do a deal with the Egyptians to this end, despite their history of violence towards the State of Israel. As I noted, Iran was very supportive of the coalition offensives against the Taliban after 9-11 - hardly Islam United, was it?

[Adrian II]

I guess it really does come down to how suicidal the regime(s) in Iran are willing to be.

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

States are unlike individual people. States are not happy or depressed, they are not suicidal or buoyant. States serve aggregate interests, and they do this well or not. They make mistakes, but they do not go mental. States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.

None of the so-called 'madmen' summoned by the White House in the past twenty years has been really mad. Kim, Moammar, Slobo, Saddam, all were rational by White House criteria, that is: if it is considered rational to go to war halfway around the world on the basis of false reports and kill tens of thousands...

Really, this talk of 'mad' leaders who 'can not be trusted with nukes' is so counterproductive, it isn't even the start of a notion that could lead to a sound policy.

EDIT
* and that's a compliment

[Conradus]

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?
States aren't funny either, except maybe Belgium*.
EDIT
* and that's a compliment

Well, enjoy it while it lasts :p

And it seems our current politician are driving us to the abolution of our state

[Louis VI the Fat]

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

Plenty. They are not around anymore, which is probably owing to their suicidal nature.

While I agree with your assesment that states should not be described in antropomorphic terms, I do think that you place too much confidence in the rational behaviour of states. Especially of states run by dictators - where the line between 'person', acting with all the irrationalities and whims of the human character, and 'impersonal state' can be very thin indeed.

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.


FactionHeir, thanks for your interesting article.

[Geoffrey S]

The important thing to realise is that for most Middle Eastern countries - the more so for Iran, as they are not Arab - Israel is little more than a shibboleth used to keep their populations in check.

These countries tried to eradicate Israel militarily a couple of times and failed spectacularly. They know there's no point in trying - they have got the lick of practical common sense some time ago. But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

Let's hope we don't go far in the same direction with generic terrorist threats.

[Beirut]

Tribsey, I'm unclear here -- do you believe the U.S.A. to be the moral equivalent of the worst regimes in the world (and history) or to be worse than them all? Are we part of the continuum of evil, or are we an exemplar?

History is clear - the US has with Iran far more than Iran has with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

[KukriKhan]

History is clear - the US has with Iran far more than Iran has with the US.

Iran does not dislike and distrust the US for no reason, they have a history repleat with reasons. So when they hear the US espouse the virtues of democracy and civilized behaviour when condemning them, the speeches ring hollow indeed in Tehran.

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

[Geoffrey S]

That's the thing, in my opinion. The Cold War was risky enough - I'd rather not think of lots of little Cold Wars.

[Beirut]

No argument there, but I think you may be missing the point by trying to justify (or not justify) military action. As Frag points out: this is world politics, played with big bombs and mobilized militaries that Div Arma proposes as a hypothetical.

"Jutification" and talk of democracy or divine rights or insights at that level is mere sweet-talk to appease the folks at home (whether in Des Moines or Tehran or Tel Aviv) who are gonna pay - in money and blood - for any such action. Div A wants to know what we think the 'deciders' and generals might do, if it's thought that the Ayatollahs have, or are near to having, teh bomb. In that rarified atmosphere, morality and righteousness gets trumped by expediency and practical application. They'll sell (or try to) the war later - especially when nukes are involved.

IMHO, the answer is "e", none of the above.

Some day Tehran, by hook or crook, will achieve the bomb. And probably a couple of other "surprise" nations, too. And the rest of the world will get used to it. Then Israel will have to try to out-build Iran, ala the US v USSR cold war. Whomever's economy can continue to stand in the long run, wins - sort of. The bombs will still be there. And our grandkids will live in a yet more dangerous world.

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due.

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Israel will smack down Iran's nuke program. They did it to Saddam 20+ years ago...

[Ice]

Israel will smack down Iran's nuke program. They did it to Saddam 20+ years ago...

The two almost have nothing similar.

[KukriKhan]

Mmmmm... too much wine to post with the grace and thought your post is due.

Anything I write now will be a cheese omelett of Ghengis and Ghandi that would have me put away.

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

[PanzerJaeger]

The two almost have nothing similar.

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.

How delicious. No-one has implied my neo-con tendencies for some time now.

I believe that the natural state of Mankind is to be free. So yes, remove these governments and the nations of the Middle East will tend towards their natural state.

Your straw man is to suggest that I would encourage outsiders to effect this change, rather than to allow those people to discover liberty themselves.

[Tribesman]

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

[PanzerJaeger]

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was? (Ignoring the interesting surface to surface goodies Israel recently aquired and the near certainty that they have assets in country that greatly reduce aiming difficulties.)

[Tribesman]

Panzer , a bookmaker would wet himself laughing if anyone ever considered placing a bet at those odds.

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was?

The assesment was that if they are willing to risk their entire usable strike capacity and get lots and lots of co-operation from a wide range of unfriendly nations they may just about be able to try it with a very very high risk of total failure .

[FactionHeir]

@FactionHeir's article...

Links to Al Queda? Figures we learned absolutely nothing...

Looks quite like it. Sad really. Another disaster waiting to happen.... but that's what the war party is all about, eh?

[Adrian II]

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

Democracies can be just as irrational as autocracies. All are given to mistakes. However, no state in history ever wanted 'to end it all'.

The situation that came closest to having a madman in control of a nuclear arsenal would be the democratically elected Richard Nixon in his final years in office. He was paranoid, permapissed and extremely angry.

Come on, Louis; either you agree with me, or you must be barking mad.

[Beirut]

Heh. The Ghengis/Ghandi Omlette as a solution - exactly what is needed IMHO.

Sobriety has me by the throat once again but I still cling to the omellet.

I feel that any war with Iran will be a manaufactured war and the manufacturers should do something that makes them face the consequences of their actions and not dawdle in half-measures that will do nothing but leave the situation hanging about our necks for another twenty-years. They need to either make real peace or make real war and have the cohones to live with what they did.

If war - then war. Sherman's war. Real war. Get it done and get it over with in such a fashion that generations pass before the Iranian army so much as owns a slingshot. Wage war so that, as my friend says, " I never see the same face twice." If the hawks want war then they should have the courage of their convictions to say Dresden and Tokyo - not Shock & Awe.

If peace - then real peace. Peace that requires hard effort, communication, conciliation, and concessions. Both sides will have to lose something in order to win something. Let Obama sit with Ahmedinejad and have a cup of coffee. Let Jesse Jackson loose in Tehran. Hire Pink Floyd to redo the Pompeii concert in the middle of the desert. Have the powers that be do something, anything other than blustering and threatening and standing in the corner with their hands over their ears, yelling "La-la-la-la-la-la... I can't heeeeeear youuuuu." Communicate, communicate, communicate. The Persians are an ancient people, they know how to haggle, they know how to make a deal. So, make a deal.

Real war or real peace. Ghengis or Ghandi.