Why Israel should not attack Iran

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by ejazr, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    History could be a deterrent to Iranian aggression - The Washington Post
    Fareed Zakaria


    We are hearing a new concept these days in discussions about Iran — the zone of immunity. The idea, often explained by Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, is that soon Iran will have enough nuclear capability that Israel would not be able to inflict a crippling blow to its program.

    In fact, while the specifics are fresh, this is not a new strategic concept at all. Nations have often believed that they face a closing window to act, and almost always such thinking has led to disaster. The most famous example, of course, was Germany’s decision to start what became World War I. The German General Staff believed that Russia — its archenemy — was rearming on a scale that would soon nullify Germany’s superior military strength. The Germans believed that within two years — by 1916 — Russia would have a significant, and perhaps unbeatable, strategic -advantage.

    As a result, when turmoil began in the Balkans in June 1914, Germany decided to act while it had the advantage. To stop Russia from entering a “zone of immunity,” Germany invaded France (Russia’s main ally) and Belgium, which forced British entry into the war, thus setting in motion a two-front European war that lasted four years and resulted in more than 37 million casualties.

    Now, I am not suggesting that an Israeli attack on Iran would have anything close to these consequences. But I am suggesting that it is profoundly shortsighted to base a major decision — to go to war — on narrow technical considerations like windows of vulnerability. Many in Washington in March 2003 insisted that we could not wait for nuclear inspectors to keep at their work in Iraq because we faced a closing window — the weather was going to get too hot by June and July to send in U.S. forces. As a result, we rushed into a badly planned military invasion and occupation in which soldiers had to endure combat in Iraq for nine long and very hot years.

    Israeli officials explain that we Americans cannot understand their fears, that Iran is an existential threat to them. But in fact we can understand because we have gone through a very similar experience ourselves. After World War II, as the Soviet Union approached a nuclear capability, the United States was seized by a panic that lasted for years. Everything that Israel says about Iran now, we said about the Soviet Union. We saw it as a radical, revolutionary regime, opposed to every value we held dear, determined to overthrow the governments of the Western world in order to establish global communism. We saw Moscow as irrational, aggressive and utterly unconcerned with human life. After all, Joseph Stalin had just sacrificed a mind-boggling 26 million Soviet lives in his country’s struggle against Nazi Germany.

    Just as Israel is openly considering preemptive strikes against Iran, many in the West urged such strikes against Moscow in the late 1940s. The calls came not just from hawks but even from lifelong pacifists such as the public intellectual Bertrand Russell.

    To get a sense of the mood of the times, consider this entry from the Nov. 29, 1948, diary of Harold Nicolson, one of the coolest and most sober British diplomats of his generation: “t is probably true that Russia is preparing for the final battle for world mastery and that once she has enough bombs she will destroy Western Europe, occupy Asia, and have a final death struggle with America. If that happens and we are wiped out over here, the survivors in New Zealand may say that we were mad not to have prevented this. . . . There is a chance that the danger may pass and peace can be secured with peace. I admit it is a frail chance, not one in ninety.”

    In a speech at the Boston Navy Yard in August 1950, Navy Secretary Francis Matthews argued that, in being “an initiator of a war of aggression,” the United States “would become the first aggressors for peace.”

    In the end, however, the global revolutionaries in Moscow, the mad autocrats in Pyongyang and the terrorist-supporting military in Pakistan have all been deterred by mutual fears of destruction. While the Iranian regime is often called crazy, it has done much less to merit the term than did a regime such as Mao’s China. Over the past decade, there have been thousands of suicide bombings by Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Pakistanis, but not been a single suicide attack by an Iranian. Is the Iranian regime — even if it got one crude device in a few years — likely to launch the first?

    “Israel is finally confronting the sort of choices the United States and Great Britain confronted more than six decades ago,” says Gideon Rose, the editor of Foreign Affairs. “Hopefully it, too, will come to recognize that absolute security is impossible to achieve in the nuclear age, and that if its enemies’ nuclear programs cannot be delayed or disrupted, deterrence is less disastrous than preventive war.”
     
  2.  
  3. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Another pigeon hole outlook... If Iran acquires nuke the whole Arab world will follow.
     
  4. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    If the US has not blinked on Chinese proliferation to Pak, we would not have seen this day.
     
    amitkriit likes this.
  5. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    The Saudis already have nukes
     
  6. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Because India acquired it first...
     
  7. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    If you're talking about Pakistani nukes then that is not Saudi's. But mind you there's a greater likelihood that in case of a nuclear Iran Saudi might move closer to Chinese orbit. Why? The US may not be too willing to proliferate nuke weapons tech to it, and Saudi will be sorely disappointed. China on the other hand won't have qualms of arming Saudi Arabia... If this happens it'll be very bad news for India.
     
  8. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    I think the gist of the article is that even if Iran does go nuclear - the MAD doctrine will deter Iran from using nukes.

    If Iran does go nuclear publicly, it will be surrounded by Gulf Arab states, Egypt, Israel, Turkey all of whom will be hostile to a nuclear Iran.

    On the other hand, Israel and US officials themselves have admitted that a preemptive strike will only delay NOT destroy an Iranian nuke program. And Fareed Zakaria I think gives some good historical examples with countries more powerful and more crazy than Iran. As time goes by, nuke tech. will be more common and more countries will reach that capability level. The US, S. Korea, France and China all have nuclear co-operation deals with UAE and the Saudis and Saudi Arabia in particular has put a target of 20 nuke reactors by 2020.

    For India, an attack on Iran would be as disastrous as the war in Iraq. We need a laser like focus of the US on the Af-Pak region and not be distracted by wars in other countries in the Middle East.
     
  9. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    Ejaz if we are going against Iran we have to see that the regime gets toppled and we get a regime which is more acceptable internationally and gives us more lee way in terms of logistics .The transition must be smooth and without wrinkles.If we cnnot do that it is better we do not piss iran
     
  10. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    Because USA and China acquired it first.........
     
    arunpat likes this.
  11. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    And I might add, that Israeli military leaders seem to have the same view

     
  12. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    The thing I can see is If Iran goes nuclear the middle-east will go nuclear.This will bring MAD into the scenario the major downside for US is the ME regimes will not toe its line then
     
  13. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    @Iamanidiot

    The only stage where it becomes an either or situation for India would be IMO a military strike on Iran. This would be highly unpredictable and IMO impossible to effect a regime change. Look how difficult Afghanistan and Iraq were for the US. Both of these countries were militarily non-entitites and were small countries of less than 20 million people. Iran has an economy that is touching the top 20 countries in the world and a population of around 80 million.

    And in the end result I do agree with you, that since the transition will not be smooth (there might be no transition at all), there is no need to be more loyal than the king as they say.
     
  14. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,496
    Please. :frusty:

    India acquired nukes, so the USA is justified in winking at China's pfoliferation attempts? :rage:

    Do you know what proliferation means? What the implications of it might be for the world?

    There are many other reasons for the Pakis to have been ignored by the US. You need to read this history in the book: "Deception: Pakistan the united states and the global nuclear weapons conspiracy"

    It will tell you how things have come to such a pass as they have today, and how the US made mistake after mistake, error after error.
     
  15. Iamanidiot

    Iamanidiot Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    1,493
    @Ejaz the best way out and the most optimal scenario is support a intra-regime transition in Iran instead of Khamenei either Khatami or Rasifanjani becomes the Grand Ayotallah is the best thing for us.The more I look at it the more it is becoming apparent to me that intra power struggle in the Iranian regime is spilling into the global scenario.

    Neither Israel or USA can do much wrt to Iran as you said Iran is too big it has a large landmass and a highly intelligent and educated population
     
  16. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976

    Oh I can;t wait for that time to come... :scared1:
     
    pack leader likes this.
  17. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,519
    Likes Received:
    1,544
    The whole write-up is built on the premise the world = Israel or America and their values are universal. Then Iran acquiring nuke capacity is indeed a nightmare for the "world community" (read Israel (*_*)), like Soviet or China for the US / West. However, each country (big powers included) acts in their own interest, not necessarily in Israel's comfort. Israel, already nuke capable, (or anyone else) can't sell the fear that Iran is an "exitential threat". No, not for India or China, at least.
     
    spikey360 likes this.

Share This Page