A light to the nations?

Duck! Grenade!

Aw, was just having fun. Dag, you seem to come around once in a blue moon, drop a few topics on us and then move on. Why don't you hang around for a while and add your voice to the mix?

Hello there Geo.

Ever since Redscape moved to this new format I've been a bit hesitant to jump in. I don't like change. I'm a Roman Catholic afterall. When I think back on the old site, its robust forums and its history of great debates I get a little nostalgic for the old days. Another reason I've been out of the loop is due to the fact that I've not been involved in a game for some time. I need to remedy that soon. I miss playing.

I've been accused of throwing grenades in the past in various forums but the truth is I bring up issues that I think might interest some of the minds on this site. Minds I've come to respect over the years even though I may completely disagree with another's worldview. In the end, I'm more interested in what others have to say on various topics than anything I've got in the tank. I really do learn from quite a few folks here. Even the verbose ones. If I really feel passionate about a topic I'll carry on an arguement, at least until it' turns ugly.

As a few here are aware, I struggle with Israel's foreign policy decisions. This frustration is in part due to a nation that I see as a theocracy moreso than a democracy. That said, it strikes me as odd that a country who understands itself to be a light to the nations has pretty much set the tone for assasination policy world wide including our own. Furthermore, I've been fascinated by the Mosad and their cart blanche approach to national security and retribution since WWII.

It seems like there has been very little reponse in the west to the assasination of Roshan. The lack of outrage comes as a surprise to me.

I'd love to hear what you think on this assasination Geo.

I don't have a strong view on the assassination. My gut is that it is the wrong thing to do. Assassination of civilians is a dangerous game and can backfire in all sorts of ways. The notion that civilians can be targets is a dangerous precedent.

My criticism is tempered because I may not know the entire situation, and neither may anyone else posting on these boards. I presume that Israeli and US intelligence have a much better handle on how close Iran is to getting nukes, and the remaining hurdles. If we hit the point of no return in 6 months, and this delays it by 3 months, I can't fault the Israelis. Iran has said that Israel is a one bomb country and they want to wipe it off the map. They've demonized Israel since 1979 even though there is not a direct point of contention. They arm terrorists on Israel's borders who have killed Israelis, and will do so when the opportunity arises.

The Iranian regime has no regard for its own civilians, so why would they care about Israelis? The Israelis have to make tough calculations of right and wrong that I thankfully don't have to make on my own.

As to your other point about Israel being a theocracy more than a democracy I just don't think that is true. They have elections; they have a supreme court; they have a free press. They have basic human rights for gays and women that are unheard of throughout the middle east. Christian and Muslim holy sites are preserved, protected, and there is full access. How many synagogues are there in the Arab world? How are Christians treated in Iran and Egypt? Iran is a theocracy. Afghanistan was a theocracy. Egypt may become one. If you think that Israel is more of a theocracy than a democracy, you need to expand your horizons.

As to your view on Israeli policy since WWII, I'm not sure what specifics you are getting at. Hunting down mass murdering Nazis in Argentina? Hunting terrorists who killed innocent athletes in Munich? Freeing innocent passengers in Uganda (except for the one who was presumably killed by the Ugandan government)?

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I'd love to hear what you think on this assasination Geo.

I haven't been following it so closely, probably for precisely the reason you say, that there's been so little attention paid to it. But assassinations are criminal acts. The people who order them and the people who carry them out should be brought to justice. I know that's not a popular sentiment in this country right now, but if you believe in the rule of law, I don't see how you can take another position.

But, to be fair, I don't think it's been shown who assassinated this man. It's not like Iran is a place where assassinations don't happen, so would be hesitant to assign blame when, really, we do know very little about what happened.

Exactly, George. The thread has been set up with the assumption that the Israelis killed him. And part of the response, it seems there's also the assumption that he wsas key to the programme.

I'm not convinced, given his age and specialty that he is key. My suspicion is that the Iranians (or some faction of them) killed him, partly because of a perceived security risk and partly so they could accuse others of doing it.

Perhaps the most significant news of the last couple of days:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

“From now onwards, we will support and help any nations, any groups fighting against the Zionist regime across the world, and we are not afraid of declaring this,” Khamenei said during a rare Friday prayer lecture at Tehran University.

“The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” Khamenei said. “And it definitely will be cut off.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/020 ... am-is-near

Speaking at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center's annual conference, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak compared the current standoff with Iran to the "fateful" period before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, when Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

Although this general conversation has been going on for about 6 years, the temperature has definitely increased this week.

It's not good. The suggestion of an oil embargo on Iran certainly hasn't cooled things down - and given the way that oil is traded is totally useless if enough countries ignore it.

I'm not sure how much of this is rhetoric and how much is real, though. One thing I do know - "pre-emptive strikes" really are not a good idea.

From what I've heard, the Israelis have concluded that Obama won't use a military option, either independently or as a joint operation with Israel. Like the rest of us, they are also trying to calculate the likelihood that Obama will win re-election. As those odds increase, Israel is more inclined to act before it gets too hard, and only the US has the ability to stop it.

My gut is that there have been very frank discussions about this since there has been a lot of F2F contact amongst very high level officials in the last 2 weeks. Now the US is trying to convince Israel not to preempt. I wonder what reassurances are being given, and whether they are sufficient from an Israeli perspective.

Do you really think that Romney (or whichever guy gets the Republican Nomination) would, if elected, actually use a military option on Iran?

Do you think it's just politicians from the US who are advising Israel against action, and not Pentagon and other military advisors who are looking at what the implications might be?

It is very disheartening that Iran is ratcheting up the rhetoric. It is also very disheartening that Israel is doing the same. Should the US and other allies be joining in, or trying to hold them off of each other?

yes
no
trying to hold them off of each other. I think that the US has to credibly show Israel why its strategy of sanctions combined with providing Israel with some needed technology is sufficient enough for Israel to not worry. That's why they are meeting F2F. No doubt they are exchanging all sorts of info. I don't think any of us are in a position to know whether the US is successfully making that case.

On the first, I hope then that Romney (or whoever) does not win, or that you are wrong. A US-led strike on Iran would be massively counter-productive, in my opinion.

On the second, is that 'no, it's not just politicians' or 'no, it's not military advice as well'?

On the last, I hope that the case is being made. If a US strike would be counter-productive, I think that an Israeli strike would be even worse. Particularly for Israel and the people living in and around it.

There is one question that people who talk about military action always seem to overlook, but which is vitally important (and Carter found this when he tried to 'do something' regarding Iran):

What if it fails?

On the second, it's military advice as well. I suspect it is a collaborative conversation amongst people with a lot of mutual respect.

Yes, this is scary stuff. On the other hand, read the Khameni quotes again. This is the top dog; not Ahmadinejad. While saying these things he pursues nuclear weapons no matter the consequences. What if the Israelis do nothing and he is deadly serious? Does he think about these things the way that you and I do? I hope he does, but I'm not sure. Are you?

I'm not sure either. But that uncertainty makes me less comfortable that any particular action is the best way forward, not more.

But the question remains for Israel, or for the US or anyone else considering an pre-emptive strike. If it works, then best case the Iranians can't produce nuclear weapons for a while longer. But if it fails, then Iran can carry on and will be trying to encourage others to react to the aggressive country/ies who attacked it.