Professor Benny Morris: Nuclear War to Avoid Nuclear War

In today's New York Times the Israeli academic Benny Morris, in an article fittingly entitled "Using Bombs to Stave Off War," opines that a "preemptive" nuclear conflagration in the Middle East could have some kind of positive outcome for Israel, the United States, and the world. It's a disgraceful piece of intellectual demagoguery based on mind-boggling, and really quite insane, situational ethics. "Israel," Morris's lead begins, "will almost certainly attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months."

Later in the piece, he narrows down his prediction for an Israeli military assault on Iran for the period between November 5 and January 19, "ensur[ing] that Israel will have support from a lame-duck White House." Morris's advice is that Israel should finely calibrate its timetable to hit Iran based on American domestic politics. This coordination between Israeli "security" policy and American elections exposes a very strange relationship between the two nations. He also laments the fact that given the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, "the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands."

Professor Morris goes on to argue that the current nuclear standoff with Iran leaves "the world" with only one option: "the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel." He longs for the United States to give the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) access to air strips in Iraq to carry out the strikes, adding: "The best outcome will be that an Israeli conventional strike, whether failed or not . . . would persuade the Iranians to halt their nuclear program." That notion is the most chimerical, dangerous, and LEAST LIKELY OUTCOME of any IDF strike against Iran. Didn't these Israeli hawks learn anything from the failed "war" in Lebanon in the summer of 2006? Hezbollah, which depends on Iran's largesse, emerged from that encounter stronger than ever, politically and militarily. Just yesterday Israel was forced to ignominiously exchange with Hezbollah live prisoners of war for dead ones. What evidence is there that Iran would be weakened for any period of time from IDF attacks no matter how large-scale they might be?

Morris's circular logic puts Iran and Israel in an inevitable nuclear showdown. He claims Iran, a country that has not invaded any of its neighbors in over 250 years, is so ideologically committed to the destruction of Israel that the moment the Iranians get an atomic bomb they're going to hurl it at Tel Aviv. But he also seems to believe that somehow, miraculously, Iran will be persuaded to dump its nuclear program following a devastating IDF or U.S. assault.

This is dangerous codswallop.

The much more likely scenario is the Iranian government, with its public opinion galvanized after being subjected to unprovoked attack, will rush head-first into building a nuclear weapon as fast as possible as a deterrence to future IDF or U.S. military assaults.

Morris recklessly suggests that if Iran dares to fight back in any way against Israeli or American interests following the IDF's conventional military violence "an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable."

So Morris argues that 1). The Iranian regime is so driven by ideology that it will use any nuclear weapon it gets its hands promptly against Israel; 2). The IDF must launch a preemptive military strike against Iran to stop them from getting the bomb; and 3). If Iran reacts to the conventional attack by hitting Israeli or American interests in the region, Israel should, in turn, "respond" to Iran's justified actions in self defense by raining atomic bombs, (which Israel officially denies it possesses), on the heads of the Iranian people.

Morris uses his intellectual gifts to try to construct, with gonzo logic, a patina of legitimacy for a policy that could easily end up killing millions of people.

The terms "preemption" and "self defense" that Israeli hawks like Morris throw around are nothing but euphemisms for aggressive war and military violence (and terrorism) in the pursuit of geopolitical objectives. The IDF failed in Lebanon with a relatively small number of deaths on both sides, with the 1,400 Lebanese civilians paying the highest toll. Yet any confrontation with Iran along the lines Morris seems to be perfectly happy with will not only fail to win any long-term "security" for Israel, it would inevitably result in far higher civilian and military deaths on both sides.

But the craziest part of Morris's argument is his matter-of-fact tone towards Israel using for the first time since Nagasaki the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. For Morris, the Bomb is just another item in the IDF's tool chest. He has no regard for the potential effects of such unthinkable belligerence on the region and on the world. He doesn't entertain the down side of a tiny nation of under 7 million people, with no fixed internationally-recognized borders, (that shouldn't have nuclear weapons in the first place), using them as a means to attain some kind of future "stability" -- under Israel's terms. It's a colonial mindset. These are delusions of grandeur I thought we had moved beyond after the repudiation of the neo-cons in Iraq.

Morris's outrageous, amoral cheerleading for military violence, if followed as "policy," could plunge the world into a large-scale war -- only this time with 21st Century technology on all sides. Such flagrant disregard for the well-being of millions of innocent women and children in the region and in the world should be relegated to pamphlets handed out by homeless guys with tinfoil hats, not found in the opinion section of the New York Times.

Comments

[sdskelton03]

This man is trying to come up with a solution for a very difficult problem.

There are two primary questions here that need to be answered.

1. Is Iran developing a nuclear weapon? With the exception of the most recent NIE, every piece of news I see seems to indicate that they are.
2. If they are, will they use nuclear weapons against Israel? In order to say no, one would have to call Ahmedinejad a liar. The man has all but promised genocide against the Israelis.

It seems like the world really only has two choices. We can attack Iran or we can sit back and allow a second holocoust against the jews.

What way do we want to go?

[batguano]

War is the action of madmen or scoundrels. The Israelis know that these last days of the Bush/Neocon regime, is their best chance to continue deliberate destabilization & conflict.

Your questions;

1. The NIE is only one among much info showing no evidence of Iran pursuing Nuc weapons, only power generating as they claim.
If the news you see/hear is so one-sided, I suggest a wider range of opinion. The American press/media is tightly controlled by pro-Israel interests and enormous pressure brought to see that only those views gain exposure.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Leupp28.htm
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL08Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF24Ak04.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html

2. Ahmadinajad's "wiping Israel off the map" comment was a fabrication pushed by the pro-Israel press. To take words as more meaningful than actions is a mistake, it has been a US armed Israel who attacked it's neighbors repeatedly, most recently Lebanon, not Iran.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

We have several choices; more pre-emptive war that will lead to decades of destabilization, death & destruction, fomented by "pro-Israel" forces to further expansion & colonization, their MO for 50 years, or a wide-ranging dialogue to identify and expand areas of growth & efforts toward peace, like the Saudi Initiative; again, opposed by Israeli extremist fundamentalists.
http://www.peacelobby.org/saudi_initiative.htm

[nk007]

sdskeltono3

Is Ahmedinejad the same thing as the 70 million Iranians? You don't even know that It is not the President of Iran who hold supreme authority over nuclear issues. Attacking a country because its leader makes ignorant remarks seems to me not only foolish, but also a violation of international law that condemns wars of aggression. May be Iran would be justified in attacking the United States, preemptively, because one of its political leaders, aspiring to be president, goes around singing "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

[larry278]

It would be a rude, chilling irony if Israel did use its nuclear weapons on Iran on the pretext of preventing Iran from starting a nuclear war against Israel, the US & those who support the US & Israel. Harry Truman said that he used 2 A bombs on Japan to end a war quickly & to evade using a bloody invasion to subdue Japan.
Prof Morris might be criticized by some Israelis for saying the Israel does indeed have nukes & saying when & where Israel would use these weapons. Israel doesn't officially admit to having nukes. Those who're charged with the use of nukes do not want the nation who is to be targeted to know when they can expect to be bombed. In the past Israelis who tried to give other nations any of Israel's military secrets were punished swiftly & harshly. Who gave Prof Morris licence to say that Israel had nukes & tell the world when & where Israel would use its nukes? Prof Morris might be pressed to give an account of his conduct to the people & gov't of Israel shortly since he spoke of a possible military action.

[deminmo]

Hasn't Bush been making a case for war with Iran
with every trip? Hasn't there been numerous visits
in the White House with reps from Israel? Hasn't
Bush been busy supplying arms to countries that
might be affected in the Middle East? Bush started
work on a comprehensive plan in 2003, called COMPLAN
8022 that laid out every stratigic move.
What this conference with Iran in Switzerland will
accomplish no one can really be sure of.

[johnie2xs]

Zionists, Evangelicals, Al Qieda (jihadists)........... You tell me the damned difference !!

[Liberal2]

Zionists: want a country where Jews are safe

Evangelicals: demand you convert to save your immortal soul

Jihadists: Allah wants nonbelievers dead

There. Does that help?

[johnie2xs]

Too, too literal. It was meant more rhetorically, than anything. I was just trying to point up the fact that religious zealots of any stripe will be the ruination of the world.

[Michale32086]

You seem to be arguing that it's perfectly acceptable to have a nuclear armed Iran in the region. Concurrently, you seem to be making the case that it's also perfectly acceptable to have a nuclear armed Hamas or a nuclear armed Hezbollah..

Is that what you are saying??

Iran can stop all of this, if it wants to. If Iran is truly only developing nuclear energy for peaceful uses (a ludicrous claim, given it's vast oil reserves) then Iran should jump at the chances that the EU has offered to build and maintain reactors that cannot be used to generate weapons grade materials.

The simple fact that Iran doesn't should be sufficient indication that Iran is NOT looking towards peaceful uses for it's nuclear program.

Finally, consider the situation where your neighbor has threatened you and your family time and time again with brutal murder and has told you he plans to "obliterate" your house. You then learn that the neighbor has applied for a permit to have mortars and grenades in his house, because he claims that HE is the "victim" of threats and persecution...

How would you feel about having an armed to teeth neighbor who has constantly threatened to kill your entire family? Wouldn't you take steps to insure that your neighbor never gets access to such weapons that would make it easier for him??

Michale.....

[Liberal2]

"...a ludicrous claim, given it's vast oil reserves..." A typical misleading justification. If I were Iranian, I'd want to use current oil revenues to build a substitute for oil too. Then make money from selling the no longer necessary asset. Uderstand too that China's need for energy will be so great (and their military so powerful) they won't accept a "Sorry, we need our oil for our own needs" excuse. The ayatollahs would find themselves replaced by more Chinaphilic Iranians (are Iranians today going to Chinese universities).

That said, I have the same opinion of Iran you went on to express.

[Michale32086]

I see your point and it is a logical and rational point.

But Iran's leadership is not logical or rational. They don't think in terms of the Big Picture business interests...

Michale.....

[valkyrie607]

"How would you feel about having an armed to teeth neighbor who has constantly threatened to kill your entire family? Wouldn't you take steps to insure that your neighbor never gets access to such weapons that would make it easier for him??"

I believe this is exactly the motivation Iran feels in developing nuclear weapons.

[Michale32086]

Please name the country that has unjustifiably threatened Iran?

Michale.....

[oldpotsmuggler]

Have you ever noticied that no nuclear state has ever given a device to any non-state actor? And how is it that you know that Iran would break the established track record?

Somebody has been taking way too much propaganda way too seriously.

[Michale32086]

}}}}And how is it that you know that Iran would break the established track record?

Well, gee whiz, let's look at how Iran acts..

Support for terrorists orgainizations...

Using children as "human wave" to destroy minefields is actually an established part of their military doctrine..

I think these is sufficient evidence to conclude that Iran would NOT all of the sudden "make nice" if they were to acquire nuclear weapons.

Michale.....

[Baryshnikov]

"If Iran is truly only developing nuclear energy for peaceful uses (a ludicrous claim, given it's vast oil reserves)"

That's not a ludicrous claim at all! Use some common sense here-- Iran has a large and still-growing population and its oil reserves won't last forever, so it makes sense for Iran to generate domestic electricity using other means (such as nuclear power and renewables), allowing it to export its oil and natural gas and thereby obtain more hard currency. Also diversifying its economy. As an added bonus, this probably allows for more oil and natural gas to enter the market overall, keeping the overall prices down. It only seems irrational when you don't think about it!

[Michale32086]

And yet, Iran absolutely REFUSES to accept the EU's offer to develop nuclear power that CANNOT be used for weaponization development..

WHY do you think that is???

Michale.....

[altohone]

You have to view this all in the context of the McCain campaign.

The wingnuts have decided to go down swinging... insisting that McCain go even farther to the right while simultaneously having folks like Morris go even further to make him look reasonable.

None of the neocons wants to be held accountable, and if they can trigger yet another war and thereby avoid or delay accountablity they will.

These trial balloons to test the public's reaction to an attack by either Israel or the US based on assertions for which proof has never been presented should be criminal. Pre-emptive warfare, particularly suggesting nuclear, is unlawful to the core and wrapped in sheer lunacy.

The idea that an attack could become palatable due to the election schedule suggests these American and Israeli right-wingers pushing for war are truly delusional and therefore dangerous.

McCains embrace of their message may be his best hope for winning, but Americans regaining the fog of war that fostered tolerance of Bush seems unlikely.

[loslobo]

#1 "preemption" and "self defense"

Isn't that the Bush doctrine or just the most heinous of all war crimes? Which is one and the same, somehow that it never mentioned.

“The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.

[loslobo]

#2
Long before the Iraq invasion, Israeli officials had told the Bush administration that Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq. "If you look at President Bush's 'axis of evil' list, all of us said North Korea and Iran are more urgent," says former Mossad director of intelligence Uzi Arad, who served as Netanyahu's foreign-policy adviser. "Iraq was already semi-controlled because there were sanctions. It was outlawed. Sometimes the answer [from the neocons] was 'Let's do first things first. Once we do Iraq, we'll have a military presence in Iraq, which would enable us to handle the Iranians from closer quarters, would give us more leverage.'"

.” In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force.
Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change. This contingency plan entitled CONPLAN 8022 would be activated in the eventuality of a Second 9/11, on the presumption that Iran would be behind it.

[loslobo]

#3War preparations in Israel have been ongoing since late 2004. The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attacks are slated to be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area".
The bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401907_pf.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070221&articleId=4888

These maybe outdated but just think how long Cheney sat on his plans
Sweet dreams America

[tc399]

One minute after anyone bombs Iran (1) they will be at war with US, and (2) they will block the strait of Hormuz.

We can't fight everyone in the world. The reality phone is ringing. Someone had better answer it.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I've requested from the editors they link the article -- I saw at least one other Huff blogger discussing it.

[ceu]

Here's a link, Mr. Palermo
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

We need to think of this with a little history in mind, this "bad" Iran, "good" Israel dichotomy is far too simplistic. The United States created the modern regime in Iran by overthrowing Mossedegh in 1953 -- Israel should begin do drop this colonial mindset, as if it can divide and conquer the region with the help of the United States -- the Iraq war is over, the US troops are coming home -- Israel needs to formulate a plan B -- not bloody likely, but AIPAC and the rest can forget about the neo-cons running American foreign policy anymore, ain't gonna happen. It's over for them -- even Condi is over them.

[Steeevyo]

Its not simplistic. Sometimes facts are that simple.
Who cares what the US did in 1953?
The threat is there and has to be dealt with.

Im all for Obama talking to them. Because when the bombs start raining they wont be able to complain that nobody talked to them and warned them before.

[ceu]

"Who cares what the US did in 1953? " People who think it's important to learn from history.
As for the threat - EXACTLY what do you think the threat is? The National Intelligence Estimate of Oct. 31, 2007 doesn't lay out much of a threat from Iran at all. The real threat is that BushCo and Israel will ignore the NIE and start yet another war in the Middle East.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Let's hope that cooler heads will prevail inside the Israeli Knesset and Mr. Morris's scenario will not be "on the table" because of the insanity of it. Any discharge of a nuclear weapon, particularly by the IDF, anywhere in the Middle East will not have anything "good" come out of it. Remember Pakistan? They already have the Bomb. How far are the crazies willing to push this thing? Meanwhile, Condi Rice, who was one of the most vociferous warmongers leading up to the Iraq War, is apparently finding backchannels with Iranian officials for the purposes of talking. Benny Morris does not even consider the option of talking with the Iranians, or "negotiating" anything -- hence, the neo-colonial mindset. The nation of Iran has been in the neighborhood a lot longer than the modern State of Israel. Why should the Iranians accept having the threat of nuclear attack hanging over them? Morris also missed the fact that the US invasion of Iraq, which he loved, has done more to strengthen Iran than any single event in recent history. His prescription for dealing with a failed strategy is to expand the size of the failure.

[Doofus]

I think, I hope, it is understood by governments of all nuclear powers,
the major ones anyway, that nuclear weapons are for last resort use only.
Apparently Benny Morris doesn't see it that way, but he is understood
to be an eccentric, presumably without real influence in government.

It remains to be seen whether minor powers, or would-be powers,
would agree about the 'last-resort' limitation. But for them, the threat
to have/develop/keep the necessary materials is a potent political
weapon in itself.

[shrinqrap]

"We had to destroy The Middle East in order to Save The Middle East"

This endless TRIBAL mentality - two millenia old and now with nuclear weapons. Have we in the western world escaped such a Tribal mentality?

If not, or if not soon, we will be the ones paying the horrific, civilization-ending consequences.

[FearlessFreep]

I'm glad Benny Morris wasn't in the White House (or the Kremlin) in October 1962.

[timm0]

This is the genius that has elevated Israel to its status as the most hated nation on the planet. Too many of the right-wing fringe (like here) have control and this ridiculous prophecy of constant aggression against a self-righteous and indignant Israel gets fulfilled each time it provokes violence.

Bush borrowed their overall strategy and it's done for us what it's done for Israel.

[Budh]

Talking about the Axis of Evil!

[1will]

I would have liked to have seen a link to Morris' speech. It would have helped seperate state sanctioned saber rattling from a real threat.
By the way, Iran may not have invaded a neighbor in over 250 years but it does threaten the existence of Israel weekly. It supplies arms, money and training to terrorists and is responsible for the death of innocent Israeli citizens. The Iranian President (or mouthpiece for the Mullah's that really control Iran) believes in the 12th Imam fantasy and it's not unreasonable to believe he might welcome a potential apocalypse.
http://www.memri.org carries translations of speeches by Arab leaders for those of us that don't speak Arabic.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Replace Bush for Ahmadinejad and you ought to see instantly why you just plain don't have a valid point. "Are we as bad as they are?" Uh, yeah, pretty much.

[ceu]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

[multipole]

Christians and muslims alike look forward to a messianic advent. Call that a fantasy if you like but only a tiny subset of fanatics on each side are in a deranged rush to apocalpse, spearheaded by Bushco.

And Iran does not threaten the existence of Israel weekly; it calls for the end of the zionist regime, just like most Americans clamour for the end of the neo-con regime. Should we follow Benny's logic and nuke those vermin too?

It doesn't get any more absurd than this (in the NYT to boot).