Benny Morris: Why Israel will bomb Iran
Benny Morris, the famed Israeli historian, argues in the New York Times that Israel will ‘almost surely’ attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next four to seven months. His scenario of the possible consequences is terrifying. Registration is required, so here below is the whole article. It’s grim reading:
ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.
It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.
But should Israel’s conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow. Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power. And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russia’s and China’s continued recalcitrance and Western Europe’s (and America’s) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric. Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the “point of no return” in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.
Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel. Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Iran’s air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves. But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands. This curtails the White House’s ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.
Which leaves only Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders. Thus the recent reports about Israeli plans and preparations to attack Iran (the period from Nov. 5 to Jan. 19 seems the best bet, as it gives the West half a year to try the diplomatic route but ensures that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House).
The problem is that Israel’s military capacities are far smaller than America’s and, given the distances involved, the fact that the Iranian sites are widely dispersed and underground, and Israel’s inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely that the Israeli conventional forces, even if allowed the use of Jordanian and Iraqi airspace (and perhaps, pending American approval, even Iraqi air strips) can destroy or perhaps significantly delay the Iranian nuclear project.
Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — will certainly make the effort. Israel’s leaders, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert down, have all explicitly stated that an Iranian bomb means Israel’s destruction; Iran will not be allowed to get the bomb.
The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not — and, given the Tehran regime’s totalitarian grip, it may not be immediately clear how much damage the Israeli assault has caused — would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program, or at least persuade the Western powers to significantly increase the diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran.
But the more likely result is that the international community will continue to do nothing effective and that Iran will speed up its efforts to produce the bomb that can destroy Israel. The Iranians will also likely retaliate by attacking Israel’s cities with ballistic missiles (possibly topped with chemical or biological warheads); by prodding its local clients, Hezbollah and Hamas, to unleash their own armories against Israel; and by activating international Muslim terrorist networks against Israeli and Jewish — and possibly American — targets worldwide (though the Iranians may at the last moment be wary of provoking American military involvement).
Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best — meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.
Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war. They are likely to use any bomb they build, both because of ideology and because of fear of Israeli nuclear pre-emption. Thus an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable. The alternative is letting Tehran have its bomb. In either case, a Middle Eastern nuclear holocaust would be in the cards.
Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Bar this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland. Some Iranians may believe that this is a worthwhile gamble if the prospect is Israel’s demise. But most Iranians probably don’t.
Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, is the author, most recently, of “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War.”
Comments
| 19 July 2008, 8:12 am |
Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers.
God bless the wise people
Sina
| 19 July 2008, 8:16 am |
Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers.
God bless the wise people
Sina
Rather than address any of the points in this CIF-refugee’s comment, I thought I’d just copy and paste the whole thing again so we can marvel at its brilliance….
| 19 July 2008, 8:19 am |
“The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?”
No. If that is the question, the difference betwen the answers is the difference between our anihilation and our survival. The risk is too big for us to just wait.
Is like saying, that guy with a knife who is standing in front of my open door, looking at my daughter with a maniacal face, is just my neighbor with which I have a terrible argument all these years, but whom I thought he won’t ever do us any harm, or is he the same neighbor, about which I am not so sure? Should I just go back to my room, or should I confront him?
| 19 July 2008, 8:38 am |
“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.
God bless the wise people
Sina
So good we had to print it thrice, look upon his words and despair. Half the people I know would probably agree with this, they just might spell it better.
| 19 July 2008, 8:42 am |
Are Russia and China as ambivalent about any future Iranian nuclear capability as their current rhetoric would suggest?
I doubt it.
| 19 July 2008, 8:48 am |
“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.
God bless the wise people
Sina
Yeah, that’s the gift that keeps on giving.
| 19 July 2008, 8:48 am |
they’re playing soft cop I would guess.
| 19 July 2008, 9:09 am |
Why is Sina’s antisemitic rant allowed to remain on these pages? Repeating it in full to make fun of it doesn’t help either, in my opinion.
| 19 July 2008, 9:31 am |
As Mario would say liamalpha, you are being a bit of a billy bullshiner there, if repeating shite like that mocks it and shows it for the moronic fuckwittery it is then keep repeating it.
| 19 July 2008, 9:32 am |
Why not Liamalpha?
“Israel should bomb its own nuclear facilities and let the people of the world to take a breth, it is now 60 years passing of the existiance of this illigal dirty terrorist regim that always had been busy bombing the world either by its blood terstiy armay or seek minded media, i think all the people around the world undrestand now that zionist are a bunch of terrorists that cause only missery for Jews around the world and espicially in Israel , Finally some people from somewhere will nuke Israel so that to terminate this creminal illegal regim of terror. Poor US people had been paid the price of Isreal stuiped mistakes and a $20 oil barrel shall be bought $130 , Lets not forget that the fathers of these zionest caused the WW2 by supporting Hitler to come to power and then poor Jews became the first vitems of zionest war mangers”.
God bless the wise people
Sina
Has Sina asked the world what it thinks? I doubt it.
| 19 July 2008, 9:50 am |
I feel slightly disappointed that Sina’s lunacy has drawn attention from my brilliant rebuttal… Is she (he? It?) a patsy?
In response to Fabien, I would say the stakes were equally high for the West during the Cold War. The option here appears to be no option - either we have nuclear conflict or… we have nuclear conflict.
To, ahem, paraphrase Sting, don’t the Iranians love their children too?
| 19 July 2008, 10:03 am |
Benny Morris considers every possible outcome, except a negotiate peace deal, such as might actually happening this weekend in Geneva. A war between Israel and Iran would be completely catastrophic for the people of both countries. It may well bring about WW3. It is completely unnecessary. Both sides are making threats. On the Iranian side, Ahmedinejad says stuff about wiping out Israel, but don’t forget, even if this wasn’t cynical rhetoric aimed at trying to get support from the Arab world, where Iran is seeking further influence (which it is), Ahmedinejad doesn’t have any power in the Iranian system to do anything foreign policy wise. All the power is with Ali Hosseini-Khamenei, the head of state (if you don’t believe me, look at the US Dept of State website). Israel makes practise runs for an attack, which it then broadcasts to the worlds media. The threats of an attack on Iran from Israel and certain people in the US, like John McCain, are open and explicit, as in Benny Morris article above. This is just crazy. These idiots are likely to drag us all into a massive destructive war for NO GOOD REASON. And if and when that happens, its the people of Israel, who they claim to be trying to protect, that will be the first to suffer the consequences.
| 19 July 2008, 10:04 am |
Benny’s analysis is all too thorough and credible. But even if Israel can destroy Iran’s facilities (to the relief of most of the Arabs, as well as the West), it will only put off the final reckoning. Rockets are bad enough, but there are [difficult and risky] technical countermeasures, such as Patriot (and advanced developments thereof) and the latest laser tecnology. A suicide truck bomb is more likely in the long run and more difficult to stop, and it would not even have to cross Israel’s borders. Jordan’s security people (who are actually quite good) must lose sleep about this option.
The Mullahs, their hotheads and their Republican Guard (and idiots like Sina) want this conflagration. The West, and particularly Europe, will face massive internal strife as a result. Enough of our Muslims would openly celebrate a strike on Israel (and Gavin Essler’s buddy Abd Al-Bari Atwan would “dance in Trafalgar Square), or riot after an Israeli strike to cause tolerance of their host nations to snap. I fear such strife would be worse than we have seen since the Civil War, and Liberalism could die with it, with a massive swing to the likes of the BNP.
The only event that will stop this madness is the death of Islam, and that will take gnerations. Interesting times we live in.
| 19 July 2008, 10:09 am |
The Eurovision song contest clearly shows the way - extend membership of NATO to Israel (and therefore NATO nuclear and military cover, an attack on one being an attack on all) as pay-back for a strictly enforced two-nation solution (including an end to illegal settlements). Sorted.
| 19 July 2008, 10:16 am |
The Eurovision song contest clearly shows the way - extend membership of NATO to Israel (and therefore NATO nuclear and military cover, an attack on one being an attack on all) as pay-back for a strictly enforced two-nation solution (including an end to illegal settlements). Sorted.
Israel already benefits from the only practical advantage of NATO membership, i.e. US backing.
I don’t suppose knowing Belgium would come to their aid would make Israelis sleep all that much more peacefully in their beds.
| 19 July 2008, 10:38 am |
“Ahmedinejad doesn’t have any power in the Iranian system to do anything foreign policy wise. All the power is with Ali Hosseini-Khamenei, the head of state”
Now, there is a really rational man.
| 19 July 2008, 11:19 am |
As far as I’m aware, Fabian, Khamenei’s position is that Iran will retaliate it attacked. Not a terribly irrational position, surely. I’m unaware of him ever having threatened aggression.
| 19 July 2008, 11:27 am |
Khamenei in his own words:
Antisemitic tropes:
“According to reports, at the meeting between the prime minister of the Zionist regime and the American president last week the American president present him with a map of Greater Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates. What does that mean? How can Islamic countries believe their words? How can they regard America as an arbitrator in the Palestinian issue? That aggressive, bullying, usurping and wrong slogan — from the Nile to the Euphrates — was the cursed and condemned slogan of the Zionists. Recently they have denied it, saying: No, that is a lie, we have no such intentions. Now these American warmongers are advocating it. That has exposed them to the Muslim world.”
About negotiations:
“Brothers and sisters, today the Palestinian people’s struggle has fallen into place; it revolves around the axis around which the hope of victory lies. In other words, the nation has come onto the stage. Israel is a contrived regime. It is an illegal regime. It is a usurper regime. They have taken a country from its people by force, through injustice and with ploys. Hence, any kind of negotiations that is based on the acknowledgement of this regime is an illegitimate negotiation and it is a negotiation that will not endure.”
About suicide bombings:
“Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance [the US] faces this threat.”
This is the supreme religious authority of Iran. This guy says that he believes in all that fairy tales that include murder and his regime is developing nuclear weapons.
Sure, TheIrie, he is a really rational person. And of course, you can read his words on negotiation. Learn to read.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/ayatollah_khamenei_in_his_own.html
| 19 July 2008, 11:29 am |
Tell me TheIrie, don’t you feel dirty after defending the Mullah Khamenei and calling Israelis “Murdering bastards”?
Do you really not feel dirty and ashamed of yourself? I know I would.
| 19 July 2008, 11:40 am |
“I’m unaware of him ever having threatened aggression.”
Not directly no.
‘Imadinnerjacket’ is a creature of Khamenei, and he has clearly stated that he wants Israel to be ‘wiped off the map’. Imadinnerjacket’ would not say this unless he had full permission from Khamenei.
With regard to the article, it just shows you that appeasement doesn’t work. Not that we’ve made that mistake in the west before - pandering to a far right genocidel Anti-Semitic ideology. erm….
Only this time my friends, they might have Nuclear weapons.
| 19 July 2008, 11:41 am |
Fabian - we need to separate out a number of issues. The most important issue, which I was addressing, is on the question of aggression and war. This is the most important because of the potential consequences, not least for Israel. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will probably fire missiles at Tel-Aviv, among other places, at least if you believe recent reports (such as Morris’s article above). Questions of whether the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, whether it is anti-Israel, even whether it supports suicide bombings, are secondary. You can’t make Iran love you. But you can prevent tensions on both sides from boiling over to war. Preventing war is priority number 1. Then, reform in Iran can be seriously considered, and is in fact highly likely to come from within. It might be boring, but the best way through this potential crisis is more talking, less threatening, and definitely preventing a “cold war” from turning “hot” at all costs.
| 19 July 2008, 11:50 am |
If preventing war is your “number 1″ priority, you will surely end up in a war, at a time and place not of your choosing.
| 19 July 2008, 11:51 am |
“Questions of whether the Iranian regime is anti-Semitic, whether it is anti-Israel, even whether it supports suicide bombings, are secondary.”
No, they are the primary questions because Iran is pursuing atomic weapons, and incendiary genocidal declarations like these are the only warning we will have before the mushroom cloud.
Now, lets not separate the issues: why do you go out on a limb to call Khamenei “rational” (when he is certainly not and also not a good person), but easily call Israelis “murdering bastards”?
Don’t you feel dirty?
| 19 July 2008, 12:01 pm |
The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?
The Bolsheviks may have been murderous but they weren’t suicidal. They managed to stand back from the Cuba Missile Crisis and establish a hotline. The very notion of a hotline between Jerusalem and Tehran is risible.
The USSR (and China) are large countries and could possibly keep functioning after a nuclear attack. Israel is tiny compared to Iran and I doubt if the Revolutionary Guard would balk at wiping out a couple of million Palestinians if it gave them the chance to destroy Israel.
| 19 July 2008, 12:04 pm |
The argument for military action is flaky, and any such move will be hugely controversial and counter productive. Preemptive action is aggression that sows the seeds for disenchantment and current and future retaliation. Nobody likes being humiliated, so I don’t see what problem is addressed.
Untill Iran threatens Israel in a very real way, way beyond words the case is presumptive and highly speculative and talk of action is reckless war mongering. US didn’t bomb Soviet facilities or vice versa, India didn’t bomb Pakistani facilities, China didn’t bomb Indian facilities, that is serious escalation, not a casual action.
That is not the way nuclear nations handle relationships, why should it change now with Israel and Iran? They have to figure out a responsible way to deal with it like other nuclear nations have, implied threats of military action is unnecessary and just vitiate the atmosphere. And if Israel raids Iran, Iran won’t respond? And we then won’t have a full fledged war?
I don’t see any support for this action and if we have learned anything from recent events is global consensus is necessary for any sort of military adventurism. At least there should be an effort to build it, unilateral action by Israel will make it the villain of the piece and Iran the victim, I don’t see how else it can be seen.
| 19 July 2008, 12:14 pm |
Martin Van Creveld believes Iran’s nuclear threat is further off and, to be honest, I think he is a better analyst of current defence threats than Morris.
Personally I think Israel should address Hizbullah and Hamas before Iran. The first Israeli attack on Iranian facilities will not be aeriel, they will be by strategic cruise= missiles, launched from her submarines, and Jericho 1s and 2s. To be truly effective against Iranian facilities, they would have to carry tactical nuclear warheads. There is no way Israel would commit to a mass aeriel attack, jeopardizing most of her strategic and tactical airforce without neutralizing Russian installed radar and air defences.
At least I hope not. The last thing that Israel needs is a government led by such as Ehud Olmert ordering an attack because of Israeli public opinion. I trust Gabi Ashkenazi’s policies with regard to Hizbullah and Hamas. Funnily enough, I think Dan Halutz would have been better at sizing up the situation with regard to Iran. But I hope and pray that Ashkenazi has a soldier’s instinct and wisdom about Iran, and the courage to tell Olmert ‘No’ if something seems unwise.
In purely military and political terms it would be better to nuke Southern Lebanon and Gaza than embark on an attack on Iran that ended in disaster.
| 19 July 2008, 12:16 pm |
’sorry all those ‘aeriel’s should be ‘aerial’. I did not mean to include Prospero’s former supernatural servant in the IDF.
| 19 July 2008, 12:25 pm |
Fabian - you’re not being serious, and it seems to me you’re wilfully ignoring the likely consequences for Israelis of the policies you are advocating.
Zkharya - I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster. Appealing again to your self interest, it wouldn’t exactly be great for the population of Sderot or anywhere else in Israel, either.
| 19 July 2008, 12:26 pm |
“would not”
| 19 July 2008, 12:26 pm |
Having said that, if Israel did attack Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas would surely attack her flanks, giving Israel, having committed much of her forces elsewhere, few military options with which to respond.
| 19 July 2008, 12:28 pm |
The most interesting sentence in Morris’ article is his description of Israels intelligence sources being limited.
Thats worth expanding on.
| 19 July 2008, 12:33 pm |
Iran’s leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program.
There’s something bizarrely mendacious in that line - and indeed in the whole of the article. If the author genuinely believes that the Iranian regime is insane enough that it is “likely to use any bomb they build” (and I’m sure he’s right), then how can he possibly believe they’d be sane enough to think twice about trying to acquire them?
For my money, this is a win-win situation for the Mullahs. A pre-emptive strike by Israel, whether it stops the nuclear programme or not, will surely swing the whole of Iran behind the government, ending whatever movements towards democracy and sanity currently exist in Iran.
| 19 July 2008, 12:34 pm |
‘Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster. ‘
Irie, please explain this sentence, and why you would hold it against me.
What I have said I have said. I am not going to bother defending or arguing for it. A failed attack on Iran that wiped out most of Israel’s airforce would be disastrous. More disastrous for her, I think, than using tactical nuclear weapons against Hizbullah and Hamas, which Israel might have to use if these forces attacked her flanks during an attack, especially a failed attack.
Gazans are a tragedy etc. Hamas could have made peace. In the end, that is not Israel’s responsibility. If they chose to aid Iran during such an attack, Israel, her hands full, would have few choices. The blood of Hamas’ citizenry would be upon their own head. Pure and simple.
| 19 July 2008, 12:35 pm |
Gregg - exactly, excellent point.
| 19 July 2008, 12:35 pm |
“Fabian - you’re not being serious, and it seems to me you’re wilfully ignoring the likely consequences for Israelis of the policies you are advocating.”
I see that you prefer not to deal with my arguments. And why do you defend Khamenei?
“Zkharya - I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster.”
The most densely populated area on the planet??? hahahahaha! What a shmock! you don’t know what you are talking about! Buenos Aires, my city of birth is three times more densely populated than Gaza.
Why don’t you concede that you don’t know what you are talking about?
Also, don’t you feel dirty?
| 19 July 2008, 12:37 pm |
Irie,
re. Sderot etc, naturally I would not using nuclear weapons if they irradiated southern Israel. One could detonate one or more neutron devices out to sea whose radius of radiation extended only or primarily into Gaza.
Yes, wicked, genocide etc. Too bad. Hamas should not have sided with Iran in Ahmadinejad’s nuclear wish to wipe the Jewish state from history.
| 19 July 2008, 12:39 pm |
Zkharya - maybe I misread you. I thought that when you wrote it would be better to nuke Gaza and Southern Lebanon rather than nuke Iran what you meant was it would be better to nuke Gaza and Southern Lebanon rather than nuke Iran?
| 19 July 2008, 12:39 pm |
“The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks?”
The Bolsheviks didn’t believe they served a supernatural omniscient being and death was just a gateway to eternal life and if you died fighting for the supernatural being you where guaranteed a place in paradise.
It’s a significant difference if one thinks that the life here and now is the only prospect you get.
People in more or less atheist/secular societies seem to have some difficulty to comprehend that people do really believe the religious tenets.
| 19 July 2008, 12:40 pm |
Also, Zkharya, people who write “wicked, genocide etc” to me are rather like people who write “yeah, the holocaust was bad, etc”. i.e. Nazi’s.
| 19 July 2008, 12:43 pm |
My point, Irie, is that in war there is only one rule: to win.
It is better to fight wars or battles that you can surely win, than those you are likely, or even potentially, to lose. In the end, history only remembers the winners. Better to use overwhelming force to win your battles, than gamble all you have on a risky enterprise.
| 19 July 2008, 12:45 pm |
Irie, I do not care what you think.
I was exaggerating to make a point, the point I have made, above. I am never going to satisfy or please you, so I am not going to bother.
There was no Jewish Hamas or Hizbullah or Iran that threatened Nazi Germany. But there were silly old fools like you who said there were.
| 19 July 2008, 12:46 pm |
If Israel only has limited intelligence sources, its difficult to see how they could win any conflict in any meaningful way.
| 19 July 2008, 12:48 pm |
Zkharya - yes, that’s something the Nazi’s also believed in.
The fact is, there is no need for a war here. This isn’t Germany 1939. It’s more like Europe in 1914, on the precipice of a completely pointless and disastrous war. And Israel is in the front line of this potential war - so why are you and Fabian willing it to happen?
| 19 July 2008, 12:48 pm |
There were no Jewish rockets raining down on German cities. There was not Jewish threaten to smuggle nuclear weapons into Germany proper. There were no Jews who said Germany is really Judea and belongs to us. I do not care what you think. You are a silly old fool.
| 19 July 2008, 12:51 pm |
If preventing war is your “number 1″ priority, you will surely end up in a war, at a time and place not of your choosing.
I couldn’t agree more.
And there is a world of difference between avoiding war and “preventing” war.
The former can be the result of cowardice and involve a great deal of passivity, whereas the latter implies a more proactive posture that could include some forms of aggression, if needed.
The Irie is for mere avoidance
| 19 July 2008, 12:56 pm |
‘Zkharya - yes, that’s something the Nazi’s also believed in. ‘
But there wasn’t. That is the crucial difference.
‘The fact is, there is no need for a war here. This isn’t Germany 1939. It’s more like Europe in 1914, on the precipice of a completely pointless and disastrous war. And Israel is in the front line of this potential war - so why are you and Fabian willing it to happen?’
How am I willing it to happen, you silly idiot? You just want to fight, don’t you? You’ll find a quarrel in anything.
What Jewish national leaders where publicly calling for the German state to be wiped from the pages of history while attempting to acquire weapons of national destruction. Up to 1939, all states practiced appeasement.
And don’t complain about comparisons with 1939, you were the one who said what I was saying was equivalent to endorsing the holocaust.
Surely what I am saying is that if Israel attacks Iran, the likelihood of such a last resort of Israel on her enemies only increases.
| 19 July 2008, 12:57 pm |
TheIrie, please tell us what is the population density of the Gaza strip, since you know so much about the demography of the region. A million per centimeter?
| 19 July 2008, 12:58 pm |
By preventing a war, you strengthen the possibilities for peace. The longer you have peace, the deeper it becomes. There really is no reason Israel and Iran cannot co-exist peacefully. There are problems with the Iranian regime, but these are only made worse by aggressive behaviour towards it. Priority 1 - avoid violent conflict. Priority 2 - slowly, and boringly, work towards co-operation and co-existence, over a period of years if not decades. Every step taken must be a step forward for both of these aims.
| 19 July 2008, 12:59 pm |
Assalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu.
I thought I’d take this opportunity to remind TheIrie about his blood sacrifice pact with me, the magical 12th occultating imam.
It seems, Irie, that the time has come to abrogate your responsibilty under the pact to cultivate 12er nuclear supremacy…I’ve already spoken to my earthly familiar Khamene’i and he has agreed.
Join us this Thursday, the Island, Ilford, for a 5er anti-occultation extravaganza. We’ll be self-flagellating trough the streets of Clapton, Plaistow and Wapping to the tune of The Proclaimers’ new number one smash, ‘letter from a well somewhere north of Baghdad’. Will you join us?
Allah hafiz wa ‘Ali wali’ullah!
| 19 July 2008, 1:00 pm |
Look, what I said was an exaggeration, but it was to make a point.
If Israel were to suffer a major set back, such as the loss of most of her airforce while under simultaneous attack by Hizbullah and Hamas, with her conventional forces stretched to the limit, she may well consider use of weapons of last resort. You can say it is immoral, Irie, if you like. But, in a matter of life or death, Israel is unlikelihood to care what you consider ethical.
| 19 July 2008, 1:05 pm |
One could detonate one or more neutron devices out to sea whose radius of radiation extended only or primarily into Gaza.
So… the goal of this strategic strike would be to subject the people of Gaza to radiation poisoning? But surely that wouldn’t actually prevent them from continuing the putative attack on Israel, which would be the catalyst for such a strike (aiding an Iranian attack on Israel, as you said), for weeks during the “latent” phase of the poisoning; whilst it would ensure that none of them had anything to lose because they’re going to die soon anyway, and so all of them would proceed fight to the death. This seems like a remarkably bad idea.
| 19 July 2008, 1:08 pm |
And I apologise for my emotionally caused grammatical, syntactical and lexical disaster. My mum’s computer in America has a spell checker that works on dialogue boxes like these. Anyone know how to get one?
| 19 July 2008, 1:08 pm |
Zkharya - OK, your last point is reasonable as a matter of fact, IF Israel chooses to go to war with Iran. That doesn’t have to happen, so the situation you describe doesn’t have to arise at all.
Fabian - Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. Maybe it isn’t the most densely populated. I don’t have the numbers, but I’m happy to be corrected on that.
| 19 July 2008, 1:17 pm |
TheIrie: I have the numbers. Gaza is not one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. That is a myth.
I don’t know who concocted it, but Gaza, actually, has plenty of vistas.
http://fabitas.blogspot.com/2008/05/la-densidad-de-algunos.html
Gaza has a density of 4.167 inhabitants per square km.
Buenos Aires has a density of 14.946 inhabitants per sq. km by night.
Every week day, the density goes up to 69.133 inhabitants per km.
And that is only Buenos Aires. Think about Sao Paulo, Mexico city, London, Bombay, those are pretty dense places.
Gaza actually is kind of rural. Just take a look on the Google Earth and compare with other cities.
I know that the myth is very useful for Arab propaganda, so I assume you have taken it from one of your idols, Juan Cole, or Chomsky. But it is completely and evidently false.
| 19 July 2008, 1:17 pm |
There really is no reason Israel and Iran cannot co-exist peacefully
Yes there are.
For many true-believer islamists, Israel’s mere existence means the koran is a lie, it means that Islam’s triumph isn’t inevitable
That, I’m afraid, is a sticking point that just can’t be overcome by touchy-feely sessions of “learning to live together” and *dialogue*, and this, even if they last for decades!
You see, on a certain level, if Israel survives, Islam dies.
The immutable, literal and direct word of god is actually quite brittle, and simply cannot broker a single contradiction (Israel’s existence in this case), because even ONE contradiciton means the whole body of Islam, its core texts etc, are all bullshit.
Ultimately, that’s what it all comes down to.
You eat one chip, you eat the whole bag!
| 19 July 2008, 1:18 pm |
Regarding matters of her continued survival, Israel will not fuck around. Benny Morris certainly knows how to write an unpopular essay, but it’s accurate and terrifying. Iranians should be very worried.
| 19 July 2008, 1:18 pm |
What Israel should be doing is directly putting it’s case to the Iranian people- and in a theatrical manner. I would be planning an operation that bombs Iran with leaflets dropped from the air - to demonstrate Israel’s ability to penetrate Iranian airspace. The leaflets should simply point out that Israel does not oppose an Iranian civil nuclear program, and that Israel does not want war with the Iranian people, but that the combination of the regimes genocidal rhetoric, backed by it’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas (the price of which is not popular with many Iranians) and combined with a nuclear program that is almost certainly directed at the acquisition of a bomb, create a situation fraught with danger for the Iranian people and the region.
This would not foreclose any options for Israel, in fact if the strategy of dividing the regime from it’s people failed a subsequent military strike would at least take place with both a rehearsal as well as the justification that Isreal had gone the extra mile for peace beforehand. At the same time it might achieve the result that far from being a factor that allows the regime to rally Iranians to it, much of the populace comes to see it for what it is - a reckless gamble that threatens their country with utter catastrophe.
What is not even mentioned in Benny Morris’s article is the fact that there is already an Islamic bomb, and even were Israel to seek safety through either a successful first strike or by way of escalation through to a nuclear strike there would be an enormous pressure in a politically unstable Pakistan - already teetering on the edge of being fully controlled by Deobandi fanatics with which both the military and Intelligence services are completely rotten, to gamble on providing a warhead or two to Hezbollah, Hamas or some sunni terrorist group allied to Al Queada or the Taliban to retaliate against either US or Isreali interests. They could even manufacture some plausible deniability - claiming perhaps that the warhead was hijacked whilst under guard and in transit - the manner in which the ISI is running the Taliban in NWFP and other tribal areas already shows the way.
So a direct military strike aimed at the nuclear facilities is the wrong way to go. Better to campaign against the leadership, and if the leaflets don’t work I would be aiming any bombs at trying to take out the entire leadership - say during a meeting of the supreme council.
| 19 July 2008, 1:20 pm |
“but I’m happy to be corrected on that.”
So, are you?
Do you promise not to bring that myth again ever in your arguments?
| 19 July 2008, 1:20 pm |
Irie.
If you compare Gaza with countries its about 5th or sixth most densely populated.
Compare it with cities and its not very densley populated.
| 19 July 2008, 1:21 pm |
My mum’s computer in America has a spell checker that works on dialogue boxes like these. Anyone know how to get one?
Use the Firefox web browser, Zkharya. It’s free and has a built-in spellchecker.
| 19 July 2008, 1:21 pm |
Fabian - you are comparing cities with a country (or an autonomous zone, or whatever Gaza is). Of course cities have larger population densities - that is not surprising at all. But compared with countries, or even regions, I think you’ll find Gaza is up near the top.
| 19 July 2008, 1:24 pm |
Gregg,
‘So… the goal of this strategic strike would be to subject the people of Gaza to radiation poisoning? But surely that wouldn’t actually prevent them from continuing the putative attack on Israel’
No, Gregg, the goal would be to wipe out rocket crews and the personnel infrastructure that maintained a concerted attack on southern Israel. It would also be aimed at Hamas command and control which is, arguably, indistinguishable from Hamas as a government.
Actually, Gregg, you are right about the ‘latent’ stage of poisoning. I had forgotten about that. But Israeli strategic planners are unlikely to have done. So, I guess, if nuclear weapons were used, they would have to be of the more conventional kind.
Look, I have no idea what Israeli planners would actually do in such a situation. It is simply a putative suggestion what would happen in a total war situation, such as the one I have described with Israeli conventional forces overstretched.
As to whether such a thing would be better than a failed Israeli strike on Iran, well, personally I feel, yes. If you think me wicked, immoral or whatever, so be it. I think a failed Israeli attack would be much worse, and send out a signal to the wider Arab, Islamic world than Israel’s alleged defeat in 2006.
Hamasstan is an enemy state and, if it decided to make total war on Israel during such an attack, it must bear the consequences.
| 19 July 2008, 1:26 pm |
Its sixth.
Behind Macao,Hong Kong,Singapore,Gibraltar,Monaco.
And yes I know some of those aren’t countries but neither is Gaza.
| 19 July 2008, 1:29 pm |
Fabian - you are comparing cities with a country (or an autonomous zone, or whatever Gaza is). Of course cities have larger population densities - that is not surprising at all. But compared with countries, or even regions, I think you’ll find Gaza is up near the top.
But you said:
“Zkharya - I’m glad you don’t want to attack Iran. Its a shame, though, that you seem to think dropping a nuclear bomb on the most densely populated area on the planet would in and of itself constitute ending in disaster.”
Area, not country. And therefore, your statement was false.
And since we ar
The question is, how much more crazy are the Iranians than the Bolsheviks? I’m sure you could hear plenty of irrational talk from those “relatively sane” folk in the Kremlin, who managed to wipe out 20 million of their own people in a fit of paranoia. This article (and I’m sure most HPers) only recognises one option - the nuclear one - but it fails to mention that Iran ramped up its nuclear programme after the Iraq War, for all the obvious reasons (yes boys, they probably did think they would be next). This was a perfectly rational (if undesirable) step. Given this defensive rationality, why should they then destroy themselves?