An updated report from the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, charges that Iran has been, and probably still is, hiding a nuclear weapons program behind its nuclear energy research. This is not particularly surprising, but it is hardly good news. Despite Iran’s many denials, it seems clear that it has been seeking to establish a miniature version of mutually assured destruction in a strategic balance with Israel, an undeclared nuclear power.
The I.A.E.A. report has put additional pressure on the Security Council members Russia and China to support more aggressive economic and political sanctions against the regime in Tehran. It has provoked a new round of F-16 rattling in Israel as a parade of strategic leaks provides details about preparation for a pre-emptive military strike to neutralize the Iranian threat. Some voices in Washington have likewise called for more serious consideration of a military option.
Regarding the use of force against Iran, President Obama said, “We are not taking any options off the table.” But, diplomatic posturing aside, a military strike is just the kind of option that the United States should take off the table. A pre-emptive attack, whether conducted by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom or all three, fails to fulfill basic just war criteria. Not only is the practical threat from Iran too difficult to assess (just cause) but the outcome of such a strike is too difficult to predict (probability of success). Any attack, moreover, could be enough to begin a widespread war in the Middle East. Iran is not Gaza. It has a conventional military capability, including medium-range missiles, that could lead to a prolonged and brutal conflict. Any attack is also likely to draw in Iran’s surrogates, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Worse, such an attack is unlikely to achieve greater security for Israel. The Iranian program has been widely dispersed and driven underground. It is unlikely that an attack would succeed in crippling Iran’s nuclear weapons development; it might even accelerate the program.
But beyond the moral and strategic problems associated with a pre-emptive attack, the last thing the United States needs is to undertake another military adventure in the Islamic world. Another debt-financed war could be the final blow to the staggering U.S. economy. Investments in human capital and infrastructure, not more war-making, are where the nation’s diminished resources are most needed now.
Israel, as a sovereign power, can of course come to a different conclusion about the threat posed by Iran. Cynical observers are already suggesting that a messy conflict with the puzzling Islamic republic is just the diversion Israel needs to slow down the accelerating movement for Palestinian statehood for at least another half-decade. That would be a cruel and short-sighted calculus for Israelis and a plain disaster for Palestinians; it would also be a strategic and economic catastrophe for the rest of the world.
The global economy twitches in anxiety each market day. It remains unclear if the Arab Spring will lead to reform or ruin. As a new generation of Muslim youth begins to perceive an alternative to the violence proposed by Islamic extremism, the West could not make a more counterproductive gesture than an unprovoked attack on Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has already done much to diminish its legitimacy in the eyes of its own restive people; a pre-emptive strike would be just the kind of event the regime could use to reassert its hold on power.
Four rounds of U.N. sanctions have already proved somewhat effective. Peaceful options to a resolution of this stand-off remain. Previously proposed nuclear fuel swaps could provide confidence-building diplomatic successes while normalizing broader international oversight of Iranian enrichment efforts. But an attack on Iran would no doubt begin a regional war and demolish whatever prospects remain for a democratic transition in Tehran. The Obama administration needs to wave Israel off from an air strike in the clearest possible terms, publicly and privately. The penalties for such a foolish act, in terms of loss of diplomatic support and military aid, should be plainly delineated. If a bold strike is required, let it be for peace, not war. Now would be a good time for all parties to sit down for a serious discussion about what it would take to establish a nuclear-free Middle East.
An attack on Iran now would at best only further isolate Israel and drag the United States right along with it. At its worst, however, it could mark the beginning of a broader regional conflict that could have incalculable human costs, intensifying global jihad against Israel, the United States and Jews and Americans anywhere. The prospects for peace, not only in the Middle East but everywhere, would be set back for generations.
If you cannot see these obvious causes, how can you even begin to assess the chance of success of a strike? That's a task that requires even more specialized skill and talent.
One does not further the cause of peace by ignoring the arguments for war and pretending they do not exist but by presenting them in their fullest and defeating them, showing how peace is both practical and prefferable. Are you capable of that?
THE DAY OUR SONS ARE DRAFTED TO DIE IN PROTECTION OF ISRAEL, WHOSE EXISTENCE IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO US, THAT DAY WILL WITNESS THE CALLING OUT OF OUR POLITICIANS TO ACCOUNT FOR WHATEVER REASONS THAT CAUSED THEM TO IDENTIFY US WITH AN ISRAEL THAT IS DESPISED NOT ONLY BY MORE THAN ONE BILLION OF THE MUSLIM WORLD, BUT BY VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE EAST AND WEST, AN IDENTIFICATION THAT HAS OPENED OUR FAMILIES TO TERROR ATTACKS, INCLUDING 9/11 WHICH WAS CAUSED IN PART BY THE WEAPONRY WE SUPPLIED ISRAEL FOR SLAUGHTERING AND DEGRADING THE PALESTINIANS.
TO THIS DAY,NO AMERICAN HAS HEARD FROM CONGRESS OR ANY PRESIDENT A FULL STATEMENT JUSTIFYING OUR MILITARY DEFENSE OF ISRAEL WHOSE ARROGANT LEADERS OPENLY SAY THEY HAVE A"SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" WITH US. IF THAT CLAIM REFLECTS THE INFLUENCE OF AN AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY THAT IDENTIFIES ITSELF WITH ISRAEL AND SUPPRESSES OUR MEDIA, A MEDIA MADE FEARFUL OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, THEN WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT THE CONTEMPT HAD FOR US BY THE MUSLIM WORLD, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE EAST AND WEST.
A bit late, but better late than......
The best in-depth analysis available is from STEPHEN WALT.... a few days ago in Foreign Policy.
But be prepaed, oh, stalwart AMERICA staff! The agitprop of the Lobby's hysteria is about to begin. Remember how they piled on Father Ray Schroth for having the gall of proposing a one-state solution.
Hang it there!
Especially..... for the our children and the children in Israel- who are led around by the fanatics in the War Party.
The containment and ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union, although inherent in its failed socialist economic structure, was prepared by the Truman administration in a containment doctrine known as the Cold War, furthered by ensuing administrations, and accelerated under the Reagan administration with a partially true, partially propagandized arms buildup which accelerated the collapse of the Soviet empire. Although the moment of entropy was sudden, it was a collapse that was thoroughly prepared for by the continuous efforts of several US administrations.
"...just as Israel was stunned by the overnight disappearance of the regional balance on which it depended..."
One of the major goals of the Bush administration advisors in Iraq was to accelerate the momentum for change the Arab populaces would demand upon seeing a democratically elected government established in Iraq. Israel, correctly anticipating that the ensuing upheavals would create instability in the region, did not encourage the Bush administration's plans. Even before the invasion, Israel anticipated such results that are now taking place which we call the Arab Spring. The Obama administration may have been totally surprised and unprepared by the Egyptian and other uprisings, but not Israel.
It is correct to say the US has no obligation to support democracy or oppose the annihilation of another people. Were 30,000 US military deaths justified by opposing North Korea and saving South Korea? Was enabling South Korea to found democracy there and saving millions from starving to death, suffering, and political repression worth the expenditure of American lives and treasure? Was the Tutsi-Hutu conflagration "their problem," or are we in any way responsible for our brother?
Those Palestinians with the power of the gun are not interested in anything other than the annihilation of Israel, as they have stated in their charter and proved by their actions. When Israel unilaterally yielded land on the West Bank, Palestinians responded by moving in rockets closer to Israel and bombarding. A primary reason those with the guns in the area oppose Israel is that a powerful democracy in the area prevents the establishment of a contemporary version of the Ottoman Empire and Sharia law. The rights of women and democracy generally are anathema to them.
Putting distortions and half-truths in capital letters doesn't alter their substance.
FIRST, HE CONCEDES THAT THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET UNION WAS IN FACT "SUDDEN", AND HENCE HE MUST AGREE WITH MY STATEMENT THAT WE WERE JUSTIFIABLY SURPRISED WHEN IT COLLAPASED AT OUR FEET. HIS ATTRIBUTION OF THE CAUSE OF THAT COLLAPSE TO DECADES OF UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATIONS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER WE, AND INDEED THE WORLD, WERE SURPRISED BY THE COLLAPSE WHEN IT OCCURRED.
SECOND, MR MATINGLY MAY BE THE ONLY PERSON WHO BELIEVES THAT ISRAEL WAS NOT STUNNED BY THE ARAB SPRING. ALL OF ISRAEL, INCLUDING THE LIKUD AND HAARETZ AND THE JERUSALEM POST AND THE FORWARD AND EVERY JEWISH SPOKESPERSON IN THE UNITED STATES, ALL OF THEM WERE STUNNED AND WOULD NOT HAVE RISKED DENYING IT LEST THEY BE LOCKED IN AN ASYLUM. BUT NOT MR MATINGLY. WHILE THE KNESSET AND THE ISRAELI CABINET WERE WAILING AND RUNNING INTO ONE ANOTHER AT THE PROSPECT OF EGYPT TOSSING OUT THE EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI TREATY, AMOND OTHER HORRORS, AND WHILE OUR ADMINISTRATION OPENLY FEARED THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR INTERNATIONAL CHESS BOARD AND ITS CAREFULLY PLACED PIECES HAVING BEEN WHACKED TO THE FLOOR, MR MATINGLY WAS HAPPY BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT ISRAEL HAD ANTICIPATED THE ARAB SPRING. WHEN HE NEXT PASSES THE IRAELI CONSULATE, MR MATINGLY SHOULD ENTER IT, SAY AT LUNCH TIME, AND SHARE WITH THEM THIS SPECIAL KNOWLEGE THAT HE HAD AND INDEED STILL HAS, WHO KNOWS, THEY MAY WONDER, WHAT OTHER SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE MR MATINGLY MAY HAVE THAT IS OF USE TO ISRAEL.
If Iran were allowed to get nuclear weapons, it would not be just another blow-hard state that, at the end of the day, wanted to gain advantage, and bully, but ultimately survive, as the U.S.S.R. in its time, and North Korea now. These states have respected the knowledge that they would be devastated for using their nuclear arms. It would have to be assumed that if the Iranian potentates had a nuclear weapon, it would be used. Would this alter the application of just war doctrine? Others better studied in that subject would have to decide. But the Iranian disposition cannont be ignored.
History furnishes us with the "classic" example that Hitler could have been stopped militarily at many points before he invaded Poland. Would this have accomodated just war doctrine? Again, refer it to the experts. It's submitted that future clarifications of just war doctrine be preceded by intimate co-working of these experts with those schooled and experienced in the military sphere, and those schooled in the history of conflict.
No one has any basis to think Iran's nuclear stategy would be limited or defensive.
Only foolish war hawks would give the Israeli PM and cabinet the right to start a war and involve the USA.. We have a constitution that says Congress does this.. not Israeli war hawks.
As for Jack's 'threat is good' argument does he not remember Teddy Roosevelt's 'talk softly' first. I suggest Jack experiment with his threat options and try them out in some inner city 'hood'
So your saying there is not problem with Iran having nuclear weapons?
Iran having nuclear weapons does not destablize Middle East security?
The old strategic nuclear warfare concepts of "mutual assured destruction" and "strategic balance" between nations that this editorial touts are as obsolete as bows and arrows. These concepts have been replaced since the mid-1980s with the strategic concept of "first strike" due to great advances in the speed and accuracy of missles technology. Over the last ten years missles such as the ones Iran has demonstrated in public are "hyper sonic" meaning these missiles can travel many times faster than sound. The old lag time of about an hour to respond to a missle attack just does not exist anymore if it ever did. It has for decades been recognized that a "first strike" one-sided military victory could be achieved by a relatively few, very fast, accurate and powerful nuclear missles that on a first strike would destroy a tageted nation, inclduing any ability to respond to attacks. This is the modern nuclear version of the classic surprise attack such as the atttack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago.
A "First Strike" nuclear attack by Iran is possible and should definately not be allowed to happen.
sure it's a problem.. how about ten more countries having nuclear weapons.? How about Iran getting nukes from Pakistan [shrink wrapped]
Do you not have a problem with a nuke war started by war hawks like yourself? learn to live with danger.. and do your part and stop advocating war and first strike action especially on a Catholic website.
Ed Gleason (#13)
Ed, everyone in the world is talking about Iran's nuclear weapons program after the IAEA finally came out last week and confirmed nuclear weapons were being development in Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States ?h?a?s???? ?s?a?i?d? ????????????????for almost ten years ????????I?r?a?n?? ?i?s? ??????????developing nuclear weapons.
????????????President Oba?ma came out the other day with a st?atement that all options were on the ta?ble ?for prev?enting Iran from having nuclear weap?o?n?s???.????
?
?
?
?
?
?? ?