Netanyahu Address

[phgreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Meanwhile in Iraq, US interests continue to align with Iranian interests.

ISIS is everyone's "interest", particularly those near the fight.

Am I to take something that is particularly illuminating and supportive of trusting Iran from this?

 

[tko]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Grahambo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Meanwhile in Iraq, US interests continue to align with Iranian interests.

Its a misleading story.

Many states and terrorist organizations want ISIS to collapse so technically, yes, we share the same interest with Iran in that respect. But at the same time, you could say we also share that same interest with other extremists, foreign fighters, terrorist organizations, etc.

 

[connor_in]

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

GoIrish41,

I've been away from the computer since earlier today coaching a basketball game,haven't t looks like you've already said pretty much everything I would have said had I been here. Thanks for providing some balance to this discussion.

So with a super majority and no resistance in 2009 and 2010 why didn't Obama take care of Gitmo, amnesty, etc? Still haven't seen a response and still waiting for PTK and GoIrish41's "plans" on Iran after critticizing mine.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

TAC's Scott McConnell just published an article regarding French reactions to Netanyahu's speech, which included this interesting take from Éric Zemmour:

But the loser in Zemmour’s analysis was not Israel—”a protege America will never abandon”—but quite possibly Saudi Arabia. “Saudi Arabia does not have this guarantee of eternal alliance. Or at least doesn’t have it any longer. It’s done everything to make a rupture happen: for 10 years, this so-called great friend of the West has subsidized every Islamic movement, from al-Qaeda to the caliphate … . with friends like that, who needs enemies?”

From his lips to God's ears. I would trade our "alliance" with the House of Saud for detente with Iran in a heart beat. You don't see Shias planning attacks on American soil, or beheading Christians in the Middle East.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You would be wrong again. If they really are the nutjobs that you claim then sanctions are less likely to work, as non-rational actors generally don't care about sanctions. Also if you think that Iran is a bunch of 9th century nutjobs, what do you think of Saudi Arabia?

We'll agree to disagree. Good luck negotiating with people who want you dead.

 

[Buster Bluth]

TAC's Scott McConnell just published an article regarding French reactions to Netanyahu's speech, which included this interesting take from Éric Zemmour:



From his lips to God's ears. I would trade our "alliance" with the House of Saud for detente with Iran in a heart beat. You don't see Shias planning attacks on American soil, or beheading Christians in the Middle East.

My worry there is alienating Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. It'd be nice to have better relations with Iran, but at the expense of losing Sunni nations it'd a tough call to make.

I don't know enough about Iran/Saudi relations to wonder if detente between them is possible. Ending their undeclared war would be huge.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

My worry there is alienating Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. It'd be nice to have better relations with Iran, but at the expense of losing Sunni nations it'd a tough call to make.

I don't know enough about Iran/Saudi relations to wonder if detente between them is possible. Ending their undeclared war would be huge.

That's a fair point, but there's no reason for us to be allied exclusively with Sunni against Shia. Our interest is in stability, which would be best served by maintaining relations with all major regional powers. It's not as if SA, UAE, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan have been very reliable partners...

 

[phgreek]

Asia Times Online :: Why world bows to Iran's hegemony

I found this an interesting article...alot of seemingly educated opinion, but interesting

 

[IrishinSyria]

Any reference to 1938 is a non-starter.

Compare:

to

 

[phgreek]

Any reference to 1938 is a non-starter.

Compare:

to

maybe I read a different article, but any references I saw to 1938 were primarily to elucidate how he sees current players/actors...not to compare their specific circumstances, but rather their roles and actions

...I'm sure you are pointing at something...and maybe I'm a little punch drunk from writing proposals for the last week...but I don't get what it is

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

9th century nutjobs with a firm grasp of nuclear physics... makes sense.

The Nazis had some brilliant scientists. They were nutjobs too. Make sense?

 

[IrishLax]

maybe I read a different article, but any references I saw to 1938 were primarily to elucidate how he sees current players/actors...not to compare their specific circumstances, but rather their roles and actions

...I'm sure you are pointing at something...and maybe I'm a little punch drunk from writing proposals for the last week...but I don't get what it is

I don't get it either, so it's not just you.

 

[Grahambo]

Still waiting on your PM response Whiskey!

 

[IrishinSyria]

For the past 10 years I have argued in this space that when war is inevitable, preemption is the least damaging course of action. I had hoped that George W Bush would have the gumption to de-fang Iran, and was disappointed when he came under the influence of Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. Now we are back in 1938, but with Lord Halifax rather than Neville Chamberlain in charge.

Implying that Obama= Lord Halifax, who is, of course, infamous for trying to broker a peace deal with Hitler. This is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but the primary one is that American military power is unprecedented in human history. By 1938, the Allied powers had missed their chance to preempt Hitler's rise, because he had already built up a superior military force (see the graph of military spending from 1930-1938). The same is not true today, and it will never be true. That's the point I was trying to make, the argument that war with Iran is inevitable and therefore we might as well just get it over with ignores the massive deterrent capability of the US. When Halifax attempted to negotiate with Hitler, he was doing so as a representative of an inferior military power. When Kerry negotiates with Iran, his words carry the weight of the military might of the United States. You have to believe that the Iranians have zero interest in self-preservation to believe that the Iranians would run the risk of nuclear or full scale conventional war with the United States.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Implying that Obama= Lord Halifax, who is, of course, infamous for trying to broker a peace deal with Hitler. This is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but the primary one is that American military power is unprecedented in human history. By 1938, the Allied powers had missed their chance to preempt Hitler's rise, because he had already built up a superior military force (see the graph of military spending from 1930-1938). The same is not true today, and it will never be true. That's the point I was trying to make, the argument that war with Iran is inevitable and therefore we might as well just get it over with ignores the massive deterrent capability of the US. When Halifax attempted to negotiate with Hitler, he was doing so as a representative of an inferior military power. When Kerry negotiates with Iran, his words carry the weight of the military might of the United States. You have to believe that the Iranians have zero interest in self-preservation to believe that the Iranians would run the risk of nuclear or full scale conventional war with the United States.

Exactly. The article was interesting in that it pulled in some perspectives that we rarely hear about in America, but his conclusion was completely disjointed from what proceeded it. He explains quite clearly why the Chinese don't want a war with Iran, and he correctly infers that the Obama administration doesn't want one either. But then he simply asserts that it's 1938 all over again, and war is inevitable, so we might as well get it over with now.

Uh, what? If both of the world's two largest military and economic forces want to broker a deal in favor of peace, that should be the end of it. Who the f*ck cares what AIPAC and the Arab League want?

 

[IrishinSyria]

It gets even more insane when you read the author's comments after the article.

No boots on the ground would be required to humiliate the Iranian regime. Air strikes would be sufficient, along with an aggressive subversion campaign aimed at regime change. Once humiliated, with its nuclear program and IRG bases destroyed, Iran would be de-fanged.

This is an absolutely crazy assumption, especially if he's right and I'm wrong about the "apocalyptic" nature of the Iranian regime. If we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that we need to really think about what the day after the airstrikes looks like.

I've been advocating pre-emptive war in the Middle East for 15 years as the least damaging alternative.

A pre-emptive war in the Middle East in 2000? With who? Over what? This guy is nuts.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is an absolutely crazy assumption, especially if he's right and I'm wrong about the "apocalyptic" nature of the Iranian regime. If we learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that we need to really think about what the day after the airstrikes looks like.

Right. And he's absolutely wrong about the ability of air strikes to either effect regime change or to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Were that the case, Israel would have done it already. In fact, air strikes would have the perverse effect of guaranteeing that Iran builds a bomb by the end of the year. There's a reason Pakistan and N. Korea don't get pushed around.

A pre-emptive war in the Middle East in 2000? With who? Over what? This guy is nuts.

Because our pre-emptive wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya were so successful, right? This guy's just another hawkish neo-con who refuses to learn from the myriad catastrophes his preferred style of foreign policy has brought about over the last decade.

I f*cking loathe these people. They're either evil or stupid. Regardless, they've been so thoroughly discredited by now that no one should take anything they say seriously.

 

[IrishLax]

Implying that Obama= Lord Halifax, who is, of course, infamous for trying to broker a peace deal with Hitler. This is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but the primary one is that American military power is unprecedented in human history.

I mean... the quite obvious counterpoint to this is that no one expects a traditional war of attrition like 18th/19th/20th century conflicts either. It is completely irrelevant how strong the military of the United States is if an enemy can utilize weapons of mass destruction.

By 1938, the Allied powers had missed their chance to preempt Hitler's rise, because he had already built up a superior military force (see the graph of military spending from 1930-1938). The same is not true today, and it will never be true.

Yeah, there's no chance that Iran is going to start building fleets of aircraft carriers but isn't what we're talking about here Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology? And isn't the "build up" of those weapons exactly what we're trying to preempt? Seems case in point but the opposite of how you're presenting it.

That's the point I was trying to make, the argument that war with Iran is inevitable and therefore we might as well just get it over with ignores the massive deterrent capability of the US. When Halifax attempted to negotiate with Hitler, he was doing so as a representative of an inferior military power. When Kerry negotiates with Iran, his words carry the weight of the military might of the United States. You have to believe that the Iranians have zero interest in self-preservation to believe that the Iranians would run the risk of nuclear or full scale conventional war with the United States.

Right, and the implied premise is that they are not rational and instead religious ideologues. And that if/when they get nuclear weapons, our words carry less weight than they currently do for the same reason the Cold War was so tenuous.

So no, Iran is certainly not going to declare an outright war with the United States. Duh. But the odds of them pushing the envelope and doing things like proxy wars or other territorial expansion rises exponentially if they possess weapons that are actually a threat to this country. For example, Russia is able to invade Ukraine because they know we're not actually going to do anything about it. Over time, Iran can get to that point if they have nuclear capabilities.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Lax, it looks like you and I both agree that the 1938 comparison is dumb and unhelpful. That's really the only point I was trying to make: the world today looks nothing like 1938, so when I see an author drawing the analogy, I'm automatically inclined to discredit what they're saying.

As for the situation that we actually do face, this article captures my feelings pretty well.

The Israeli prime minister’s excoriation of this as a “bad deal” is not without foundation.... (reasons you said)...

What he has failed to do is to propose anything better. He argues that if sanctions are maintained and even tightened, a chastened Iran will return to the negotiating table and give in to every demand made of it, no matter the degree of national humiliation that would entail. There is no evidence at all for the truth of this. In fact, people who understand Iran well or are close to the negotiations believe the exact opposite of what Mr Netanyahu claims. Iran is suffering from sanctions, but it is a proud nation that will not be brought to its knees. Mr Netanyahu accuses others of wishful thinking, but if he genuinely believes what he is saying, he is guilty of it too.

It may be that he does not. Mr Netanyahu insists that he is not advocating for war with Iran, but it is hard to draw any other logical conclusion from the position he has staked out. ...

President Obama clearly has no appetite for this unattractive risk-to-reward calculus. It is also doubtful whether any presidential successor, or even Mr Netanyahu’s Congressional cheerleaders, would see things very differently were they in his position. If Iran does at some point make the momentous choice to get the bomb, military action is very likely to be the consequence. But that will represent failure rather than success.

 

[phgreek]

Implying that Obama= Lord Halifax, who is, of course, infamous for trying to broker a peace deal with Hitler. This is ridiculous for a lot of reasons, but the primary one is that American military power is unprecedented in human history. By 1938, the Allied powers had missed their chance to preempt Hitler's rise, because he had already built up a superior military force (see the graph of military spending from 1930-1938). The same is not true today, and it will never be true. That's the point I was trying to make, the argument that war with Iran is inevitable and therefore we might as well just get it over with ignores the massive deterrent capability of the US. When Halifax attempted to negotiate with Hitler, he was doing so as a representative of an inferior military power. When Kerry negotiates with Iran, his words carry the weight of the military might of the United States. You have to believe that the Iranians have zero interest in self-preservation to believe that the Iranians would run the risk of nuclear or full scale conventional war with the United States.

...I appreciate the faith...but I was not going to get all that from graphs. I'm still not sure the comparisons were quite intended as you took them, but I get what you intended now.

An aside from the comparison...

I disagree that Kerry's negotiation with Iran carries the weight of our military because folks have to believe you'd use it. Sure, we'd use it if, after the agreement, Iran launched on Israel...we react with it. But we do not use it in negotiations...I mean there is no way Iran thinks we are going to come to a point where, if we do not get a deal, we'll start taking out enrichment sites...they know we aren't. The goos news is Iran likely believes they have about 2 years before that calculus might change...so this deal will get done within months...I just hope Kerry is at least using the unknown future president to his advantage.

 

[IrishLax]

Lax, it looks like you and I both agree that the 1938 comparison is dumb and unhelpful. That's really the only point I was trying to make: the world today looks nothing like 1938, so when I see an author drawing the analogy, I'm automatically inclined to discredit what they're saying.

As for the situation that we actually do face, this article captures my feelings pretty well.

Gotcha. Honestly, I feel like I should preface everything I've said in this thread with "I really don't know anything about this situation"... I consider myself pretty well-versed in domestic policy and how the Government operates, but I'm fairly ignorant about foreign policy. I've learned a lot from this thread.

 

[Grahambo]

Iran does not want a war with America. Nor do they want a war in general.

 

[IrishinSyria]

...I appreciate the faith...but I was not going to get all that from graphs. I'm still not sure the comparisons were quite intended as you took them, but I get what you intended now.

An aside from the comparison...

I disagree that Kerry's negotiation with Iran carries the weight of our military because folks have to believe you'd use it. Sure, we'd use it if, after the agreement, Iran launched on Israel...we react with it. But we do not use it in negotiations...I mean there is no way Iran thinks we are going to come to a point where, if we do not get a deal, we'll start taking out enrichment sites...they know we aren't. The goos news is Iran likely believes they have about 2 years before that calculus might change...so this deal will get done within months...I just hope Kerry is at least using the unknown future president to his advantage.

This is actually a good point, and it gets to the heart of our disagreement with Netanyahu.

For the US, there is a clear line where we'd use force: an Iranian bomb and/or rush to a bomb. Personally, I don't even think that's a good line. But I think any player has to believe that there's a credible threat the US will use force if the Iranians make a move for a bomb.

For Netanyahu, the line is further back: he doesn't want the Iranians to be at a point where they could build a bomb if they weren't worried about US intervention.

The key is that nobody believes the Iranians would actually use a nuke, because MAD, but without the mutuality. But in Netanyahu's eyes, an Iranian bomb undermines the fundamental purpose of the Israeli state. If Israel has to rely on American deterrence, it is not fulfilling his vision of the state as the final shield for the Jewish people.

It's an understandable concern. But it's an Israeli concern, not an American one*. It seems relatively minor, but it's significant enough to alter the cost-benefit analysis of war v. negotiations.


*edit: taken to its logical extreme, it's actually a plus in the American column. Netanyahu's worry is that if Israel loses its mythos of invulnerability, it will be a less attractive destination for Jews with the resources and skills to choose where they live (the best and the brightest). The logical alternative destination for those Jews is, of course, the United States, which would presumably benefit from adding such talented people to its numbers. Of course, nobody would make this argument, especially not me.

 

[Booslum31]

I didn't watch the speech, because I was already worn out from the bickering over the invite to speak. Congress (The Legislative Branch) is it's own branch of the government. They don't need the Executive Branch's permission, or even approval, to invite someone to come and speak to them. The President is allowed to completely invalidate the Congress by overturning laws he doesn't like through Executive Orders, but he expects Congress to ask for his approval on a guest speaker?

This whole thing has stunk to high heaven. And it's not a Democrat v. Republican, or Republican v. Democrat thing. This is about what type of government you end up with, when politics becomes a profession. Politics was never intended to be a career. It was a person volunteering to serve their country for a few years, and then go back to their actual profession. But somewhere along the way, politics became a very lucrative industry, and people started to make it their profession. So now we have come to a place where our politicians are no longer concerned about what is best for our country. Their sole concern is for the furtherment of their professional career. Don't get caught up in their petty little games. Do the research to find out if your representative has been voting in the country's best interest, or in their own. And vote accordingly.

Also, don't let them turn a guest speaker in Congress into anything other than what it was: a guest speaker in Congress.

Alas....Someone making sense. Or maybe just the first this that I've read that I agree with. Thanks OMM.

 

[phgreek]

This is actually a good point, and it gets to the heart of our disagreement with Netanyahu.

For the US, there is a clear line where we'd use force: an Iranian bomb and/or rush to a bomb. Personally, I don't even think that's a good line. But I think any player has to believe that there's a credible threat the US will use force if the Iranians make a move for a bomb.

..I'm not at all confident we'd use the threat of force in these negotiations AT ALL. I'm not even convinced we would use force to enforce the agreement...ie post agreement run up to Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. I believe we'd launch on Iran if they launched on us, Israel, Saudis etc.

For Netanyahu, the line is further back: he doesn't want the Iranians to be at a point where they could build a bomb if they weren't worried about US intervention.

I don't want them to even have "peaceful" enrichment capabilities...but because the region and Iran itself is too unstable in my view. It is less to do with Iran, and more to do with what stands in Iran's place in the future. As I mentioned before, a functional theocracy run by a renowned whack job makes me nervous...but who/what comes after him makes me say "no freakin way".

The key is that nobody believes the Iranians would actually use a nuke, because MAD, but without the mutuality. But in Netanyahu's eyes, an Iranian bomb undermines the fundamental purpose of the Israeli state. If Israel has to rely on American deterrence, it is not fulfilling his vision of the state as the final shield for the Jewish people.

...I think out of anyone who posses a nuclear weapon (assuming Iran is added), they'd be most likely. As I alluded to previously, the Iran you see today may not do it...but who knows what it looks like in 10 years. You clearly trust Iran's version of theocracy more than I do...still I too recognize the current leadership shows some level of nationalistic concern...but that quite possibly changes with one death, or the crumbling of a regime. Who then possess 1 year breakout capability, or a covertly constructed weapon?

It's an understandable concern. But it's an Israeli concern, not an American one*. It seems relatively minor, but it's significant enough to alter the cost-benefit analysis of war v. negotiations.

humanitarian concerns aside, and expectations of "ally" and peacekeeper aside...Netanyahu's alleged vision of the Israeli state is not our concern for sure. Thats alot of asides though...and this ignores hatred of the west regardless of Israel. So we have our own literal skin in this game too.

*edit: taken to its logical extreme, it's actually a plus in the American column. Netanyahu's worry is that if Israel loses its mythos of invulnerability, it will be a less attractive destination for Jews with the resources and skills to choose where they live (the best and the brightest). The logical alternative destination for those Jews is, of course, the United States, which would presumably benefit from adding such talented people to its numbers. Of course, nobody would make this argument, especially not me.

...it may be inconvenient to discuss, but not without basis in our history...immigration and asylum USED to have a factor of "potential" in the decision process.

 

[Irish YJ]

Feeling John Lennon more and more these days.

 

[ND NYC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2dewDwIQyM

preview of the next meeting with Obama (Pesci) and Bibi (DeNiro)?

 

[IrishinSyria]

It gets worse. To those who believe the executive branch should not have the discretion to refuse to prosecute our laws... is a Logan Act prosecution mandatory after this?