Neoconservatives, Reaganites and other militarily assertive factions in the United States are sometimes accused of thinking it is always 1938 (Britain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich) -- that there is always a Hitler-like aggressor being appeased and about to drag the world into conflict. There is sometimes merit in that charge.
As, likewise, is there sometimes merit in the charge against isolationists and other doves that they always see 1914 (start of WWI) or 1964 (beginning of escalation of troops in Vietnam) -- the imminent and foolish entry into or escalation of a war that can't be won -- or even if victory were to be gained, it would be Pyrrhic.
Knowledge of history can be as much a snare as a guide -- if it is wrapped in a dogma that distorts the current facts to match the preferred historic lesson.
Our actions -- if any -- in the Iranian nuclear weapons development controversy cry out to be based on a careful assessment of facts -- and a heartless rooting out of assumptions, hidden or otherwise, that may be driving policy.
Those who are or will be calling for U.S. military action to damage and delay Iran's ability to develop operational nuclear weapons -- that is those for whom it is now 1938 -- make a number of assumptions: 1) The Iranian regime intends to develop nuclear weapons; 2) once it has them, being fanatics, they may actually use them against Israel, as they have repeatedly threatened; 3) even if they doesn't use them, it will change the dynamics of the Middle East by inducing a nuclear arms race between Sunni Muslim countries and Iran, and by giving Iran a huge capacity to intimidate and dominate the region; 4) both Europe and the United States will eventually fall within the missile shadow of a nuclear Iran -- thus giving Iran capacity to be a world player and possible precipitator of nuclear war even beyond the Middle East; 5) the regime is inherently hostile and aggressive, particularly against the U.S. and Israel, and will keep pushing until pushed back; and 6) even tough sanctions will not deter Iran -- moreover, Russia is too invested in Iran to truly cooperate with us, and even Europe will not enforce tough sanctions.
The 1938'ers further believe -- or claim to believe -- that while Iran can create havoc in response to our military action (threaten oil transport out of the Gulf, terrorist attacks in the Middle East, Europe and probably the United States, further harm to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan), they would be even more dangerous -- and just as ill intentioned -- if nuclear armed. And they make the factual assumption that the threat will emerge sooner rather than later. John Bolton warned last week that we have only days.
The Obama administration, on the other hand, holds vastly different assumptions: 1) Iran may actually not want nuclear weapons. 2) If they do want them, Russia will help us stop them. 3) If we settle the Israeli/Palestinian dispute that will reduce any nuclear aspirations Iran may have. 4) If we were to attack Iran, Iran could create more chaos than we can manage. 5) But if Iran did develop their nuclear weapons, we can deter their use by providing a nuclear umbrella for both Arab and Israeli.
And, factually, they assume the danger is off by at least a year -- and that Iran is running into technical problems. Of course, predicting when Iran reaches its nuclear threshold is usually driven by policy goals. The CIA in 2007 -- which did not want war -- actually concluded that Iran had given up its objectives. Now they technically claim we have a year.
Back in 1938, British Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain could have gone down in history as the greatest diplomat of the 20th century -- IF he had been right that Herr Hitler had limited ambitions that could be appeased. There is nothing wrong with appeasement if the aggressor can be appeased at acceptable costs. But as we know, Hitler could not be appeased -- he had to be defeated.
So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not -- but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable, whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs. Those are factual questions -- although all the facts cannot be known before the event.
For me, having observed the Iranian regime, as we all have, I find the Obama administration's factual assumptions to be mostly wishful thinking, at best. Although, the almost certainty of Iran's terrorist response to a military attack by the United States is a factor to sober the mind and hesitate the hand. Nonetheless, the grim assessment of the 1938'ers seems sadly more realistic.
Because nobody could actually be THIS afraid of some tiny nation - half a world away - that hasn't attacked ANYONE in over 200 years. It's hard to imagine an inferiority complex that intense.
Trust me, Tony: naked greed looks better on you than trembling cowardice. It's more, you know, "you".
Iran's policies are not in Iran's national interest:
- Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah to destroy Israel, while doing nothing for the Arabs in the UN camps.
- Trying to convince Germany and Israel the holocaust did not occur.
- Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" for 30 years.
- Invading the US Embassy (an act of war).
- Building ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons without being able to refine gasoline.
- Loose talk about "Wiping Israel of the map" or "off the pages of time"..
Add it up, the Ayatollahs don't think like other people. You wouldn't do these things. You don't think that way.
But there is a "Rational" interpretation to Iran's nuclear weapon scheme: An oil monopoly, probably under an Iranian Caliph.
An oil monopoly would be a threat to the US and Europe, and would be a casus belli for war. They may have other business first; intimidate the Arab states by nuking Israel first. If Iran thinks it's First Strike capability will knock out Israel's retaliatory strike, anything could happen. And they're working on it. Look up the Sajil missiles.
Once Iran has nukes, they'll have them for 100 years. Suicide is part of their culture.
To say that Iran is "Rational" is saying that nations don't make big mistakes. That Napoleon and Hitler didn't invade Russia, and that Athens didn't attack Syracuse (look it up).
And Iran makes "the factual assumption that the threat will emerge sooner rather than later." They did? How? Links, please.
No war with Iran.
Leave Iran alone.
What lands have Iran occupied? Okay, it probably has undue influence in Iraq. That's sort of understandable given the Shiite connection.
You, Bolton and everyone else on the fearful right have yet to make a compelling case that a nuclear armed Iran is in fact a danger. A nuclear armed attack on Israel would invite massive retaliation.
Now, would the acquisition of nuclear weapons spur the Saudis to acquire them? Perhaps. And, this may spur yet another useless arms race in the Middle East. However, if we have learned anything from the foolishness between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, the possession of nuclear arms on both sides cannot change the occupation of Kashmir by both Pakistan and India one bit.
And, if Iran can develop a long range capacity to attack Europe, then that would also bring Moscow within range. Do you seriously believe the Russians would allow that? They are already petrified by the threat of a NATO installation of defensive missiles in Poland, a threat ended by Obama.
I would point out that Iran having the bomb would not spur an arms race. No nation in the ME has the capability to develop a nuclear program like Iran and Israel have. The Saudi's don't have the educational and scientific development to make such undertaking. Furthermore, no arab state will be able to take an inch without Washington's approval. If the Arabs develop a bomb, it will be either because Washington approved it or Washington sold it. Even Pakistan could not do what it has done without Washington's approval. Clinton said he knew the Pakistani's had the bomb but they did not approve of them testing it publically until India did it first.
Having a nuclear program is not like having a soccer team. It is complex and difficult work for any developed nation, much less the Arabs who import their underwears. This is just another scare tactic when Iran does not even have a bomb program.
How much radiation poisoning will result from bombing a nuclear enrichment facility?
Seems like an overreaction to Iran investing in electrical power under the terms of the international treaty they have signed.
If you attack someone first, you are the bad guy. No matter how much spin you wrap it in.
This one sentence sums up Tony Blankley's bias view. If the US was to attack Iran it would be called a military attack, while Iran's response to such an event would be considered a terrorist act. In the same logic, if Iran proceeds with a military attack on US soil, any response would be seen as a terrorist act?
"John Bolton warned last week that we have only days."
Yes, yes another dire warning. This will turn out to be as prescient as the warnings issued by Republicans in 1982 that without military action against the communists in Nicaragua that their tanks would be at the Rio Grande in a matter of months. We're still waiting.
Right wing sheep will continue to be herded by these vacuous blatherings while the adults can only shake their heads in disbelief. It is unfortunate that those who live by feasting at the military trough are in positions to keep the ashes stirred and the elements of conflict alive. They are joined by the usual chorus of talking heads in rallying the lemmings to follow them. Thus it is that 20 years after the end of the bogus Cold War that our military is still as bloated and consumes a trillion taxpayer dollars per year tilting windmills.
Also, Iran has been building IRBM and MRBMs for over 12 years starting with Shahab-3 class missiles, ghadr, Sejil and what so on, and Israelis are well aware that Iran could level a big chunk of Tel Aviv in 20 minutes if they wanted to.
In addition, get this notion that Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy created to fight Israel out of your head. Hezbollah was created in response to Israeli invasion of lebanon and 20 year occupation of southern lebanon. Iran helps hezbollah to avoid Israel wiping them off the map, followed by occupation of southern lebanon.
Without WMDs, the ballistic missiles Iran has are militarily useless. They build them anyway. The WMDs we know Iran is working on, are nuclear.
The United States has ended its aid to Lebanon recently and Lebanon has asked Iran to take over for us
In this context I find the disappointment that the opening of the Obama administration didn't produce immediate results from Iran shortsighted.
The article discusses Chamberlain in 1938. What he misses is that Chamberlain had little choice. Should English soldiers die to defend one of the injustices of Versaillles: the occupation of Sudetenland by the Czechs? That wouldn't meet much enthusiasm in the UK.
the only blood that will ever find its way under lugubrious tony´s fingernails is that of the still fleeing prime rib served up by some waiter of color at a dc lace napkin feast house.
the world out there is just so savage for the little guy.