Noah Pollack has the story:
What will Obama say about all this? Being that evidence of Iranian-Syrian hostile intent complicates the administration’s desire for “engagement,” whatever that means anymore, the answer is: probably nothing.
What will the human-rights hustlers say? Where is Judge Goldstone? Where is the flurry of outraged press releases from Human Rights Watch? These weapons are intended for one purpose only — to terrorize Israeli civilians and drag the region into war. Shouldn’t this be an easy call for peace-loving human-rights activists? HRW has condemned Israel for violating international law over the way it funds public schools. I would bet a large sum that HRW will say nothing about the 500 tons of arms Iran just tried to send to Hezbollah. Priorities, you see.
That this is happening almost exactly thirty years after the hostage taking in Tehran is particularly appalling.
If Iran attempted the same thing with the US in place of Israel, there would be defeaning cries for war and rightly so.
I don’t see anything surprising here — we knew Hezbollah was getting armed by Iran, and we knew there was Syrian complicity. As for anniversaries, it is always the anniversary of some terrorist outrage — if not by Iran, than by Hezbollah, Syria, or some other tangentially involved actor, and if not against the US, than against Israel.
So, basically, the status quo remains. You can get outraged, but if you think about the middle east, you have to be in a constant state of outragge – it is not as if your outrage should bubble over because of this. The same could be said for Obama, and Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and so on. It is always time to be outraged. So what do you want to Obama to say or do that could change things? Whatever it is, it is the same thing he should have done last month, and the same thing he should do next month.
What do you think Obama should do?
Mike, about cries for war, I’m not sure, but aside from the defacto state of war, Israel is already in a formal state of war with both Syria and Iran, isn’t the right? (Although, secretly, even after the Iranian declaration of war, Israel sold weapons to Iran, with US involvement, such as during the Iran-Contra deal…) If any new declarations of war are called for, I think is should be by Lebanon against Syria and Iran, for arming Hezbollah, but that would be suicidal for Lebanon.
Whatever it is, it is the same thing he should have done last month, and the same thing he should do next month.
So you’re saying that Obama is never going to do this thing that he should have done?
When you are fighting for your very survival what are the moral limits you should place on that fight? None?
Clearly Israel has declared enemy’s whose goal is its destruction. If these enemy’s gain enough power to be a real threat to Israels survival then I think Israel has every right to use whatever means necessary, including WMD, to defuse the threat. I don’t think Iran understands that it if actually gives its terrorist allies the means to really threaten Isreal it has signed it up for its own destruction.
When Israel is forced to nuke Terran the blame will lie squarely with the present U.S. administration for not taking a hard line with the aggressors. Some would argue that Israel is the aggressor that it took land 50 years ago. Human history is full of conquest and counter conquest the “Jews” kicked some A** and now the palestinians are unhappy about it. Rather than move on and try to create a productive life in the aftermath they have focused on revenge as the sole guiding direction for their existance. This is not productive.
The Native American got their land taken by the Europeans earlier than that, they have now settled within the resultant society and largely have created lives with more meaning than historical revenge.
Clearly the Native Americans have suffered as a result of the conquest, but they have not become obsessed with the conquest.
If every American city had to fear Native American suicide bombers then we would respond to that by restricting Native Americans. The fact that they don’t hold a violent grudge means they have a shot at integrating with american society and becoming successful. Life is not always fair deal with it.
So Paul,
When are you opening up a Palestinian Casino?
Could give a new meaning to the Gaza Strip!
Note that this is Hezbollah and not Hamas. Ostensibly, the Palestinians are not involved.
Re: gambling: it is already happening! The Palestinians in Jericho opened a casino that caters to Israeli tourists. Similar casinos, for Israeli tourists have opened in Jordan and Egypt. The Israelis, like many places in America, allow floating casinos only, although there is a debate (maybe resolved by now) about allowing the first land-based Israeli casino in the tourist town of Elat, which is way the hell away from the rest of Israel and separated by desert (kind of like Las Vegas).
Karl, you’re funny, but what thing should be done? The casinos are a great example of what I think should be done: economic engagement. Get rich instead of making war.
What do you think Obama should do?
He could start treating Israel like an ally, instead of an annoyance.
Recent headlines: “Palestinian anger as Hillary Clinton praises ‘settlement concessions'”, “Obama to tell Rabin memorial: U.S.-Israel alliance is unbreakable”
But talk is cheap, so what policy do you want Obama to pursue?
Seize a portion of Iran’s oil revenue or overseas assets and redirect it to Israel as compensation for this monkey business. If the international community doesn’t go along for the usual reason (cheap gas is more important than an out of control military power), then the US still has the option to unilaterally attack Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons.
Interesting reply Karl. I think the US should encourage the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Attacking even military installations in Iran with conventional weapons might seriously set back the pro-democracy movement. A counter-argument you might use is that attacking Serbia did not prevent the pro-democracy movement (or at least, anti-Slobo movement) from eventually prevailing, although the US is still unpopular there. The use of nuclear weapons, even against military targets, might tip the scales against the pro-democracy protesters for decades, unless we occupied Iran afterward (which isn’t going to happen.) I would want to reason from knowledge of Iranian society rather than from analogies to Serbia, or even analogies to other middle-east interventions. My real point is that we should consider how to reform Iran (as well as the rest of the region).
Seizing assets seems much more proportional.
My real point is that we should consider how to reform Iran (as well as the rest of the region).
The administration seems to be not just uninterested, but disinterested in that. It seems to prefer to
appeasenegotiate with dictators.As do I. Iran is now going through what the US went through in the 60’s. The young people are Westernizing, but the regime is militarily strong, and even the young Iranians have national pride. An attack on Iran could cause the citizenry to just rally around the regime and make them more powerful. However, if the West plays its cards right, in another generation’s time, Iran could become an ally.
OTOH, profound military defeat has been a strong incentive for creating a democratic government. For example, it’s happened in France at least three times (after Napoleon, Napoleon III, the Vichy government, and you might count the fall of the Fourth Republic too), Ottoman Empire (following the First World War), Iraq, Germany (twice), Japan, and the USSR. A bunch of those cases had no post-war nation building to speak of.
I personally consider a military attack on Iran a last resort (hence why I’m not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons). But in a world where the wicked run free and grow in power, war, even limited nuclear war is preferable to letting the problem fester and get far worse.