Thread: Israeli Propaganda

S2,

fareed zakaria did a bangup job of explaining why he thinks deterrence/containment CAN work, so:

Deterring Iran is the best option - The Washington Post

the only other option, IMO, would have to be an intense aerial campaign followed by at least a limited land campaign, if for nothing more than to get boots on the ground to ensure everything was cleared out. if you've gone that far, you might as well go whole-hog and do regime change (although certainly without an occupation afterwards).

current unclas estimates of what we can do by air alone does not strike me as sufficient.

Originally Posted by astralis

S2,

fareed zakaria did a bangup job of explaining why he thinks deterrence/containment CAN work...

The trouble with Zakaria's rationale is that he walks past the issue of non-proliferation or proliferation, depending on which way you look at it.

Containment is no guarantee that Iran will throw up its hands some day and opt out of the nuclear club, assuming in the meantime it presses ahead with its nuclear program. And the years of sanctions and constant military presence would take a heavy toll on those enforcing the sanctions.

No. This is a festering sore that we ought to deal with now. Sanctions need to be tightened and given reasonable time to work, and there should be a credible threat to use military force should sanctions fail to bring about a peaceful resolution. It is necessary to remove all incentive for the regime to tough it out for years to come.

Containment is resigned to Iran building nuclear weapons and relies on deterrence to prevent their use. As such it turns the NPT into a worthless piece of paper. It virtually says let any signatory build nukes; we'll just rely on deterrence to prevent their use. In time we'll be asking, who is 'we' and who is 'them'. Do we really want to risk having a circular firing squad where just one itchy finger can start a nuclear conflagration?

The goal of the NPT is non-proliferation and eventual total nuclear disarmament. Letting Iran or any signatory go nuke is going backward. And pussy footing around when there's is strong evidence a signatory is trying to sneak its way into the nuclear club risks making the world a more dangerous place.

History shows what happens when hard decisions and sacrifice is deferred to avoid war. The run-up to WWII when France and England could have put down Hitler is a classic example of small sacrifices not taken leading to greater sacrifices later.

We have to pop this sore sooner rather than later, whatever the cost. The best chance for a peaceful settlement is a tough, no-nonsense stance backed by all peace loving countries in the world.

JAD,

This is a festering sore that we ought to deal with now. Sanctions need to be tightened and given reasonable time to work, and there should be a credible threat to use military force should sanctions fail to bring about a peaceful resolution. It is necessary to remove all incentive for the regime to tough it out for years to come.

Containment is resigned to Iran building nuclear weapons and relies on deterrence to prevent their use. As such it turns the NPT into a worthless piece of paper. It virtually says let any signatory build nukes; we'll just rely on deterrence to prevent their use. In time we'll be asking, who is 'we' and who is 'them'. Do we really want to risk having a circular firing squad where just one itchy finger can start a nuclear conflagration?

well, this is one of the few areas where i do not wholly agree with zakaria, and you have hit the nail on the head as to why. although even there, i do not really believe it is the effect of the NPT so much as it is the determination of the nuclear powers (namely the US and Russia) to keep their monopoly.

after all, one does not need to join the NPT, and one can develop nuclear weapons outside its framework.

see, ironically, the example of israel.

however, i agree there is some effect and it is worth protecting. it is the extent of this protection that i am unsure about, because in the case of iran's capability, it would require at the minimum a very substantial air campaign...and IMHO a limited ground campaign. as i said, given the costs then we might as well just go whole-hog and remove the regime.

"...after all, one does not need to join the NPT, and one can develop nuclear weapons outside its framework.

see, ironically, the example of israel."

Or India. Or Pakistan.

Any nation engaged in such which threatens the vital interest of (at least) America, however, can't expect a clear pathway to nukes regardless.

Originally Posted by astralis

fareed zakaria did a bangup job of explaining why he thinks deterrence/containment CAN work, so:

Deterring Iran is the best option - The Washington Post

The guy is a freaking idiot when it comes to deterrence theory. He has no concept of NOT INVITING war which is EXACTLY what Iran is currently doing.

I admit I am extremely biased now that I've read Sundarji and Rie but the concept of not inviting war holds true regardless.

Originally Posted by S2

"...after all, one does not need to join the NPT, and one can develop nuclear weapons outside its framework.

see, ironically, the example of israel."

Or India. Or Pakistan.

Any nation engaged in such which threatens the vital interest of (at least) America, however, can't expect a clear pathway to nukes regardless.

Difference being as Israel chose an ambigious posture it faced no sanctions as a result of not signing the NPT whereas the other two did. There was the Soviet ultimatum but that did not materialise due to US opposition.

Israel remains the sole exception and possibly a contradiction to what you said.

It seems to me, astralis' point still holds.

col yu,

He has no concept of NOT INVITING war which is EXACTLY what Iran is currently doing.

I admit I am extremely biased now that I've read Sundarji and Rie but the concept of not inviting war holds true regardless.

sorry, am getting a bit confused. are you saying that iran's nuclear strategy is akin to not inviting war?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The guy is a freaking idiot when it comes to deterrence theory. He has no concept of NOT INVITING war which is EXACTLY what Iran is currently doing.

I admit I am extremely biased now that I've read Sundarji and Rie but the concept of not inviting war holds true regardless.

That's putting it bluntly and I agree. I don't understand how this gentleman gets taken seriously by the likes of TIME mag and other media outlets. He seems to skim the surface on any given issue, missing the key points.

I can see why you like Sunjari. Your words: ...the brilliance of one simple quote floored me. "Deterrence is not warfighting." How to apply it is apples and oranges but coming from an army where deterrence meant an overwhelming military nuclear response, Gen Sundarji's simple statement was earth shattering.

Where can I find the whole text, comment, speech...?

JAD,

I don't understand how this gentleman gets taken seriously by the likes of TIME mag and other media outlets. He seems to skim the surface on any given issue, missing the key points.

in zakaria's defense, he was editor of Foreign Affairs and a distinguished international relations/political scientist before he turned to pop media-- he has not done serious academic work for a while, now. however, when he was working professionally, his development of neoclassical realism neatly solved a lot of the gaping ideological holes in classical realism and neorealism.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The guy is a freaking idiot when it comes to deterrence theory. He has no concept of NOT INVITING war which is EXACTLY what Iran is currently doing.

I admit I am extremely biased now that I've read Sundarji and Rie but the concept of not inviting war holds true regardless.

What's wrong with that? Every nation has a self interest in not inviting war onto its doorsteps.

Originally Posted by astralis

sorry, am getting a bit confused. are you saying that iran's nuclear strategy is akin to not inviting war?

I'm saying Iran is inviting war, or at the very least see how far they can go. If the US cannot deter Iran from seeking nukes, then God help the region when they do have nukes. They may not go nuke war but they would be unleashed - just as the Chinese did with exporting their revolution.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

What's wrong with that? Every nation has a self interest in not inviting war onto its doorsteps.

You've misunderstood. I'm stating outright that Iran is on the path towards war.

col yu,

I'm saying Iran is inviting war, or at the very least see how far they can go.

completely agree.

If the US cannot deter Iran from seeking nukes, then God help the region when they do have nukes

right, this gets back to the question of the deterrence value of the NPT as well as the determination of the US/Russia to uphold it.

OTOH discounting the value of upholding the NPT as well as previous US declarations on the subject (yes, i know, a big discount but bear with me here...), what is it about iran that would make iran a different case than the examples of the USSR or china?

ie, the US was not able to deter either the USSR or China from acquiring nukes, but given nukes of our own we minimized the impact of them acquiring nukes. IIRC, this goes into your earlier saying that having a few nukes doesn't make you a nuclear power but a big fat target.

Originally Posted by astralis

ie, the US was not able to deter either the USSR or China from acquiring nukes, but given nukes of our own we minimized the impact of them acquiring nukes. IIRC, this goes into your earlier saying that having a few nukes doesn't make you a nuclear power but a big fat target.

The question remains is: are the Iranian smart enough to figure that out?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm saying Iran is inviting war, or at the very least see how far they can go. If the US cannot deter Iran from seeking nukes, then God help the region when they do have nukes. They may not go nuke war but they would be unleashed - just as the Chinese did with exporting their revolution.

Iran already tried this during Khomeni's time. Things have mellowed out since then.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

The question remains is: are the Iranian smart enough to figure that out?

Why else their ambigious posture.