THREAT
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
What will Israel do?
31-Jan-2008
Though the White House press release read "President Bush to travel to Middle East to follow up on progress made at Annapolis," his January trip actually centered on Iran, a country he did not visit.
America's friends -- the Persian Gulf monarchs as well as Israel -- fear that the publication of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) means the United States is weakening in its resolve to confront the rising threat from Iran. President Bush made his Middle East jaunt, in part, to assure them that that assessment was premature.
Since its appearance in December, the NIE has given pause to Israeli policy makers and provided succor for State Department analysts who believe the Bush administration is overestimating the case for Tehran's nuclear intentions. That is because the report implies that the threat from Iran has diminished. But in fact, a careful and close reading of the NIE does not warrant this interpretation. In the end, the report will only make it harder to address a growing threat to world peace.
Indeed, Americans might believe we no longer have to worry about Iran's nuclear program. In fact, the problem is worse because diplomacy may be more complicated, though not necessarily impossible. The most troubling prospect is that the United States and Israel are headed in opposite directions, which could lead to a severe strain in their relationship.
The NIE begins: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." That's nice, but it does not matter very much. As the NIE states, "We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so." The key word in that sentence is "eventually" because the most vital question is when Iran will be able to produce its first nuclear weapon. The NIE says nothing about how the reported halt of Iran's nuclear weapons program affects that date.
Despite the impression given by the wording in the NIE, Iran has by no means stopped its nuclear activities. In fact, Iran proudly shows off the progress it is making with its huge uranium-enrichment facilities. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that when those facilities are completed, Iran would need only "a few months" more to build a nuclear weapon. That estimate suggests that the hard part is enriching the uranium -- not making a bomb. In other words, the wording of the NIE is deceptive: building a bomb is relatively easy. Producing nuclear material is not.
That is why the 40-year effort to verify and enforce the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) has been based on controlling the production of fissile material -- that is, enriched uranium or plutonium. NPT enforcement is based on safeguarding nuclear material, not only looking to see if a country is building a weapon. Iran does not need to have a weapons program -- that is, a bomb-design program -- until it is close to producing fissile material. After all, Iran does not need a sophisticated warhead such as the ones that go atop missiles. It could put a bulky, heavy nuclear device into a ship container or a truck -- similar to the truck Iran's proxies used to bomb the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.
So what does the NIE say about when Iran will be able to make sufficient fissile material for a bomb? The old estimate, made in 2005, stated this was "unlikely before early-to-mid next decade." The new NIE says, "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame." The only caveat is from the State Department's intelligence arm, which "judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013." How nice -- we may even have as long as five years. That is better than nothing, but it is not very good.
International Pressure, U.S. Engagement or Military Force?
The NIE argues that Iran can be persuaded through sticks and carrots: "We judge with high confidence that the halt [in Iran's nuclear weapons program] was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work."
Iran's decision to suspend its nuclear weapons program, in fact, came in the fall of 2003, after the British, French and German leaders bluntly told Iran: suspend your nuclear program or suffer the consequences. Their stand was unprecedented in its forcefulness for the usually mild Europeans. And, of course, they acted in the wake of what then looked like a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq. The lesson the NIE draws is that when Iran sees a united international community, it backs down.
"Our assessment that the [nuclear weapons] program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously," the NIE reads.
I think that is correct; a longtime theme of my work has been Iran's vulnerability to influence on the nuclear issue, so it would be comforting to think that the NIE is accurate in this regard. But honesty as an analyst compels me to report that the NIE provides little reason to come to this conclusion.
The alternative, more cynical interpretation from many of my Israeli friends is that Iran understood that suspending its nuclear weapons program would have no effect on its progress toward nuclear weapons, yet would reduce the risk that IAEA inspectors would discover Iran's true intentions. In other words, the NIE displays undue confidence that the U.S. intelligence community knows not just what happened but the reasons why.
That over-confidence fits a pattern. The sad reality is that the U.S. intelligence community's track record on Iran suggests that its knowledge has been not much better than it was about Iraq or North Korea. As the new NIE points out, the 2005 estimate assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons," whereas the new estimate is that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 -- well before the 2005 estimate came out.
Since the intelligence community has now decided it was wrong in 2005, one might think that U.S. intelligence agencies would be more cautious about what they now purport to know. It is possible that the new information is the last word on the subject, but it is vital to remember that deciding whether or not Iran is "determined" is a matter of interpretation, not just information.
According to the NIE, Iran did in fact have a covert nuclear weapons program up until 2003. If that information is correct, then Iran has been in complete violation of its obligations under the NPT, both by having a program until 2003 and then not reporting it up through the present day. Only full disclosure can provide confidence that Iran will not restart the program.
What if Iran gets to the brink of a bomb?
If Iran gets to the brink of a bomb, then there will be a vigorous debate about what to do. The two obvious alternatives are: stop Iran's nuclear program by force or live with it by deterring it. Military force is always a terrible choice, so we need to carefully consider whether there is a better alternative. Deterrence sounds attractive; after all, it worked during the Cold War.
But deterrence is not a simple policy. Even during the Cold War, it meant accepting great risks, as evident from the Cuban missile crisis. And deterring a nuclear Iran is likely to prove much more difficult than deterrence was during the Cold War for a host of reasons:
* The Cold War required committing hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars a year for decades. The international community may not have the political will to assemble a broad coalition of states ready to commit forces to deter a nuclear Iran or the staying power to maintain such a military coalition over a period of decades.
* The Cold War saw mid-size powers like Germany and Italy reluctantly accept protection from the superpowers rather than build their own nuclear weapons. It will be no small challenge to deter the dozens of other potential proliferators who may conclude from Iran's experience that there is little price to be paid for violating the NPT or withdrawing from it. Since Iran's clandestine nuclear activities were brought to light, nine Middle East countries have announced they are rethinking their nuclear options.
* The Middle East security environment is much more complicated than the straightforward East-West Cold War. The Iran-Iraq war killed a half million people, at least 10 times more than have died in all Israeli-Arab fighting. Introduce nuclear weapons into this messy situation, and many more may die.
* The Soviet Union more or less lived up to agreements it made. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a long history of dissimulation. Iran may be tempted to try covert, deniable nuclear weapons delivery -- for instance, by terrorist groups -- which the United States would have difficulty attributing to it.
* For all its faults, the Soviet Union was a tightly run ship. Iran's regime is dotted with factions that seem to pay little attention to any central authority. What's worse, the Revolutionary Guards, the same radical elements that provide support to terrorists, control aspects of the nuclear program. To say that there are potential command-and-control problems is an understatement.
* The Soviet communist system wanted to rule the world. In Islamic Iran, some radical elements appear to be willing to destroy the world. They are so highly confident God is on their side that they are ready to risk bringing on the apocalypse.
What Will Israel Do?
If the United States decides to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel may not accede. For the United States, Iranian nuclear capability is a big problem but by no means an existential threat. By contrast, Israel has to worry that Iran will supplement the hundreds of millions of dollars it spends each year to arm those fighting to wipe Israel off the map (Hamas and Hezbollah) with nuclear threats aimed at the same purpose.
If Israel decides to use force on its own, that would have many disadvantages for U.S. interests. An Israeli strike would convert a global issue about Iran's failure to comply with its obligations under international treaties into an Iranian-Israeli dispute, where many around the world would automatically take sides against Israel.
An Israeli strike could engender such international criticism that Iran would be confident it can rebuild without fearing international disapproval, much less a second round of strikes. Many around the world would assume that Washington gave Israel permission, if not assistance, so the United States would face much the same reaction as if it had carried out a raid itself. That could mean vicious Iranian responses against U.S. interests.
If Israel acts against the wishes of the United States, the worst of all situations would be created if it does the job poorly. In such a case, the threat from Iran's nuclear program would be magnified, and the U.S.-Israel alliance would be damaged. Unfortunately, this case is distinctly possible. This makes it all the more urgent that we reinforce diplomacy with tough sanctions and close international coordination at the highest levels to maximize the chances, admittedly fading, that Iran agrees to a compromise.
Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is the author of several books on Iran. �
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
RE:AnonymousMmama
by Daryush on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:37 PM PSTNo kos khol (khor in real Persian) are those who voted for Bush and are supporting a war that has nothing to do with anything or anyone (in America). Just FYI. Now that's beside the point of the domestic issues of Iran, or America in that matter. Look at the topic of discussion before putting your two cents in.
Those days are over
by Daryush on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:34 PM PSTWorse thing that happened to America was Bush, yet that's the best thing that happened to the Middle East. Now they know what they can do with a will power. The most powerful country in the world with the most advance technology is like a little baby that needs a pacifier, goes around and cries wolf and screams: mommy mommy look at Iran, they are making trouble for us. lol
That's what you get to support a Zionist regime, with a "NO MATTER WHAT" mentality. go fight their wars and pour your money in their pockets. Get to work, pay your taxes for Israel's wars. since China and India are working hard to win the economical battle of the 21st century, America is stuck with AIPAC to work for bunch butchers of middle east.
Mama you are a real Koskhol!
by AnonymousMmama (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:31 PM PSTYou say that Iranians have "withstood savages like....Arabs". Are you serious? Your (our) current akhoond leaders love Arabs and have adopted Arab culture. Stoning to death, cutting hands and limbs, killing Homosexuals. We also give all our hard earned oil money, at no charge to Hizbolah and Hamas. Our country is in the pocket of Arab lovers and has been occupied by Arab lovers for 1400 years. You remind me of this loser on this site by the name of Goldust (AKA Farok2000, concerned, Xerxes.....)
Jew par, par
by mama (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 PM PSTI don’t give a flying f*** if Clawson is a Jew or not or if he is an assclo-asscon or what. He is a Jew puppet anyway.
It really makes no sense for us to duel over who is going to win over the internet.
All we can do is to wait and see who comes on top. I’ve no doubt in my mind. We have withstood savages like Alexander, Arabs, Mongols, and Tatars. A bunch of little douche-bag Jews wouldn’t scare me.
They’ll burn, if they get stupid
RE: programmer craig
by Daryush on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 PM PSTNixon could declare whatever the hell he wanted, he is long gone. Soviet era is over. No one gives a damn about his declaration. Ally or not ally, the American people are paying the price for your Zionist regime.
As we say, you can't scare the old lady from a big penis. So what is YOUR point?
To: Z
by programmer craig on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:59 AM PSTJust lets not forget that while there was over $20 BILLION (yes with a
"B") worth of orders from Shah in military equipment with the US
goivernment, when it came to needing it during Iran-Iraq war, since at
the time USA was supporting Saddam, they did not deliver on the badly
needed parts and military equipment.
That's the funniest comment yet. I guess you forgot about the whole hostage crisis thing, eh? Well, guess what? We didn't. We still havn't.
"Progress made at Annapolis"??? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
by Anonymousfuckytou (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:56 AM PSTI'll tell you what "progress" was made at Annapolis: the following week, Israel continued expansion of racist apartheid occupation "settlement" on stolen, blood-soaked Palestinian lands.
Yes, "progress" indeed. LOL!!!!!!!
You defenders of Israel are pathetic. Israel represents a threat to ALL HUMANITY and Iran is in their cross-hairs. Why do you think the Israelis are so active in pushing for a US attack on Iran? They LUST for the blood of innocent iranians.
To: anonymous8
by programmer craig on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:50 AM PSTI hope Parick Clawson learns one thing from showing his face on this
site: Iranian exiles are not to be trusted. They are not "PC" enough
for government work.
This is also directed to all the people who are calling Mr Clawson a "Jew".
Patrick is a Christian name. It's the name of a Christian Saint.
Clawson is an Anglo-Saxon name.
While soem Jews do take on Anglo-Saxon names, they usually don't choose names that are as typically Anglo-Saxon as "Clawson" is. And it's very unlikely that a Jew would choose a first name that is associated exclsuively with Christianity.
If you are going to be racist, at least get it right. Cracker, white trash, redneck, etc would probably be more appropriate here.
To: Daryush the not-so-great
by programmer craig on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:41 AM PSTfirstly you must know that IT IS
more Iran's business as a major middle eastern player, than America to
support any groups or countries that the government sees fit.
No, it's not. Nixon declared Israel to be a Cold War ally of the United States during the Yom Kippur war in 1973, because teh Soviets were backing the Arab regimes. The Arab-Israeli war became a Cold War conflict at that time.
Your precious Islamic Republic didn't even exist in 1973, so I doin't see how you can make an argument that it's more the IRI's business, than America's.
Butt out. Or take the consequences of becoming a combatant in a war that never involved you. Your choice. But the whining is getting tedious.
If Israel
is supported by the US, then Iran has every Right to support whoever
she wants to ally with against the possible dominance that would
threaten its position.
Absolutely. The Islamic Republic does have the right to do whatever it wishes to in the pursuit of its own interests. And Iran's enemies have the same rights. What's your point?
Even the Mullahs aren't this antisemetic
by Anonymous8 (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:40 AM PSTI hope Parick Clawson learns one thing from showing his face on this site: Iranian exiles are not to be trusted. They are not "PC" enough for government work.
Iranian Have the right to defend themselves, no matter with what
by "Z" nabashid (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:48 AM PSTMr Clawson,
Apparently you have been too long in the "ivory towers" of politics and do not understand that Iranians (like any other nation) have the right to defend themselves with whatever they have, they can buy and acquire, and build. That is the right that every nation and human has under any religious belief, or even international norms. Just lets not forget that while there was over $20 BILLION (yes with a "B") worth of orders from Shah in military equipment with the US goivernment, when it came to needing it during Iran-Iraq war, since at the time USA was supporting Saddam, they did not deliver on the badly needed parts and military equipment. The savage "dog of USA" (Saddam" murdered over 1 million of Iranians and caused death of his own people during that war. Since then, us Iranians have learnt the lesson. Unless we have it, we cannot use it. Iranians have every right to nukes or other conventional and unconventional military weapons in case we are attacked again, such as by the "blood sucking zionists". May be you need to get out of the ivory towers and smell the fresh air of humanity and what constitutes all of us as human nations, not bunch of blood sucker destroyers with "stone age mentality".
Parsagarda
by Jamaleto (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:48 AM PSTDamet garm, gofti
Bomb is the Only Option
by Parsagarda on Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:24 AM PSTI am so happy I can reuse a piece I wrote for JJ a few months ago.
We should be honest with ourselves. The only way to confront the global arrogance and its blood sucking crony is to come up with the bomb.
What else could guarantee peace and prosperity for Iranian people?
When I was 5, we moved to a new place and I soon became tormented by the neighborhood bully. He was older, street-wise and much stronger than I who had lived a sheltered life. Over the coming days and weeks, he hit, punched and wrestled me to the ground so many times that I learned never to leave the front door of my house. I remember standing by the doorsteps watching the other kids play, dreaming of the day that I could join in. Whenever I dared step into the street, the bully managed to swoop down and beat me to a pulp sending me home hurt and angry. We moved away by the time I was 8, and I made a vow to myself that I would exact my revenge some day.
By the time I reached 16, I had sprouted to become a confident young man who had both the mental and physical capacity to stand up for myself. And one day I did walk down the narrow streets of the old neighborhood to take my revenge. When I found the old bully standing by a brick wall where he used to torment me, he was no longer the menacing thug who put fear in my heart. He was nothing but a short, gaunt and pale loser looking unkempt and unrefined. I approached and stared into his eyes expecting for us to come to blows. But what happened next changed my life forever. Once he recognized me and sensed my determination, he turned and ran.
With Bush-Cheney-Olmert axis of evil still running the White House of ill reputes and misadventures, what other choice could there be for Iran? These are skillful bullies who have world-class expertise at threatening and isolating other people. These are also bullies who have drawn blood. How many countries have the so-called peace loving USA and Israel attacked in the past 50 years? How many has Iran attacked? The only way to stop these bullies is to have the determination and the will to stand up to thier arrogance and hegemony. And the A-Bomb is the right answer. Just look at Pakistan and India’s experience in this respect. Once they had the bomb, the bullies put their tail between their militaristic legs and pulled back into thier own dark holes never to re-emerge. And that is the only solution for Iran also.
Jew par, par
by mama (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 09:02 AM PSTYou see Patrick the little Jew,
There are bunches of Jews here whom hate Iranians even though we saved their asses a few times from total inhalation. But as you know Jews are loser. In their 5000 years of history everybody has hated them and f***ed them. Iran is next, unless they stop.
Dear Patrick- As you can see we Iranians are in A Dream World
by margbarIRI (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:44 AM PSTPatrick,
As you can see from some of the comments here, the majority of Iranian are out of touch with reality. We are racist to.
1) First, we think that we have a great culture.
Except for some great food such as Goormeh sabzi, faloodeh and good rice making abilities, we have adopted the Arab tribe like culture and we protect our insane mullah government at the expense of reality.
2) Second, we think we have great influence in the region and that our military is respected.
The reality is that we support all the radical loser elements in the region which are hated by most Arab governments. Hizbollah and Hamas are popular in Syria and Shiite controlled Lebanon. The Hizbollah military wing is about 500-1000 man strong with 20,000 plus rockets with no real military value. Its more of a problem for Israel since it would have to seriously invade Lebanon and destroy it into a parking lot and it does not want to do it at the expense of killing thousand of innocent Lebanese. That is why Israel did not make a full assult on Lebanon (because it would have to be an occupier and killer of inocent arabs in order to get ride of the 1000 man Hizbolah Army). Not worth the price at the moment.
As to Hamas, Israel will have to probably invade Gaza again and take over. But who gives a damn about the Gazans anyway? No one except for Ahmadinejad.
As to our military, we have a 75 million population. The weapons are mainly from China and what is home made is based on Chinese technology as well. Have you ever played with Chinese toys? The Iranian military is in posession of Chinese made toys. Western weapon systems (stealth, missiles controlled by GPS and Anti Missile systems) will desimate the Iranian military in a matter of hours. They will have to resort to the same Japanese suicide tactics which at the end will result in a few nukes if to many western soldiers start loosing their lives (by the way that is why the west does not want Iran to have nukes).
We boast over the Russian made air defense system. But as you recall, the Israelis over the summer, broke through the Syrian defense system which happens to be the same Iranian defense system.
For 8 years we were trying to beat Saddam's rag tag Army at a cost of 800,000 dead. Now these Xerxes characters here think that we can take on the west because we have a million man Army.
Finally, the Arabs are sick of us as well and don't really respect us. They resent us because we are making more problems for them in Iraq, Lebanon and occupied Palestinian territories. They know that we want to spread our Shia brand all over the place through proxies and they don't like it.
The fact is that we, as a nation, have been at the mercy of larger powers (Ottoman, Russian and Arab invaders) for the past 1400 years. With all the so called culture, we still can not get a good political system, we execute our brothers and sisters over politics, sexual relations and drugs; we waist all the oil wealth and have to ration it internally because we do not have enough refining capacity and other than oil our other great imports are pestachio nuts and donkeys.
We are big dreamers Patrick and if we don't wake up, we will get our asses kicked just like the Germans and Japan is WWII.
Pipe dreams
by mama (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:39 AM PSTPatrick khooshgeleh,
I understand that you and your Zionist puppet masters are having pipe dreams. But let me break it down for you. Mideast has been the realm of Iranians culturally, economically, and militarily for thousands of years. Do you think a bunch of douche-bag Jews can all of sudden show up and take over?
Dream on my little friend.
Jews want to control Iran
by Anonymous121212 (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:11 AM PSTRead Trita Parsi's book - they want to dominate the Middle East and see Iran as their natural obstacle.
This has nothing to do with Iranian nuclear weapons (which don't exist) and is only about their desire to dominate and subjugate and steal. It is Israel that poses a "threat" to Iran not vice versa.
Patrick Clawson and the entire Washington Institute for Near East Policy is their front, that's all.
Pipe dreams
by mama (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 07:58 AM PSTPatrick khooshgeleh,
I understand that you and your Zionist puppet masters are having pipe dreams. But let me break it down for you. Mideast has been the realm of Iranians, culturally, economically, and militarily for thousands of years. Do you think a bunch of douche-bag Jews can all of sudden show up and take over?
Dream on my little friend.
Mr. programmer craig
by Daryush on Fri Feb 01, 2008 08:30 AM PSTfirstly you must know that IT IS more Iran's business as a major middle eastern player, than America to support any groups or countries that the government sees fit. If Israel is supported by the US, then Iran has every Right to support whoever she wants to ally with against the possible dominance that would threaten its position.
Secondly, Israel is in a state of war because they have been put there wrongfully, and instead of recognizing that and work in order to fix the problem, they show more arrogance and bully attitude that makes more enemy for themselves.
Thirdly America has absolutely no business being there, if it's there because of her dominance strategy, so is Iran and it's called competition. US and people like you must stop their complaining and realize that you have not fallen from an elephant ass! That we need to "Give" you special head start just because you are a "super Power"
Israeli lobby has bought most of the politicians in the Capitol Hill, so if you are not Jewish then go try to fix your own problems instead of hitting yourself and moaning about a nation that besides war, American blood and money has not brought anything to the table for the Americans.
If US wishes to be mature and play a role in the Middle East, must include the major countries and try to compromise, period. No ifs buts or maybes. It's a choice that non influenced AIPAC American politicians have to make.
U.S. must stop her support for the Sunni terrorist groups around globe, especially in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. By doing so they are endangering lives and countries' future. That is not in the interest of anyone, including Iran. Iran has every Right to fight against the US supported terrorist activities. Also US must stop her support for MKO terrorist organization. They are like the al queda group and once powerful, come back to bite US and the world in the behind.
Israel must stop supporting the terrorist organizations such as the Sunni separatists in southern Iraq and Iran, Baluchestan and Pakistan. They are violent racist groups that have brought blood and pain in the people for that region. Many weapons that they use have been identified as Israeli and some American.
You must begin to fix your system before preaching superiority attitude of warmonger mentality to us and the rest of the world.
If a bald man had medicine to grow hair, would use it himself. Fix US first then come here and preach Bush's morality!
The unfortunate responce
by XerXes (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 07:07 AM PSTI would say besides the military strategies of Iran, which may or may not be successful (Israels' also), I would add the Basiji forces. They are one million of them at the minimum and are waiting for a chance to face the Israeli military. I don't think that IRI would just send them there, but will train and use them for decades to come. It won't be pretty...
As an Iranian Patriot
by Jamaleto (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 06:58 AM PSTI liked your article and would like to add that Israel does not need to make a mistake in attacking Iran=and not be successful, all it has to do is to attack. As a military man myself, knowing the Iranian military and capabilities well, I would say that Israel will be out for good. Maybe not the entire population, but the devastating response from Iran would be so sever that Israeli regime would lose it, to its people and the world. The only chance then for them would be to use their nukes, and that will not solve their problem. Actually would push their head in to more shit. Israel has never fought a real country, the Arab countries and military strategy at their best was Saddam and you saw how they work. Iran is another story my friend. Israel lost to the little Hezbullah, the tiny party in Lebanon, multiply the military capabilities of Iran + hezbullah to 1000. Think about it.
Are you the same Patrick
by Maryam792929 (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 05:17 AM PSTAre you the same Patrick Clawson that Mehdi Khalaji works for?? No wonder why you have helped him to take his critic to court. This shows your commitments to free speech. If there was any doubt that Khalaji is working for the Israeli lobby, now with this piece no doubt remains.
Reality as you wish it to be is fiction.
by Bang Man. (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 04:19 AM PSTThe analysis is in par with what has been termed as the “parallel-reality-based community”.
Does “Iraq” ring a bill? Does over 1000,000 murdered Iraqis means any thing to you?
That's not the way the world really works anymore. Not as you wish it to be shaped, bent on confrontational policy as you are, living off the fat of the land and hoping some drop out kid from Kansas to bomb Iran and the rest of Middle East into your own image ….
The US may be the sole empire, though through your judicious study of the parallel-reality, this may appear to you as if the USA is the sole actor creating other new realities all alone as it were.
USA has to stop confrontational policies. Sanctions will accomplish absolutely nothing. It simply will make US more irrelevant …
The best way to go about this to accept reality as it is i.e. Iran with some nuclear capability. USA must engage Iran and attempt to integrate it into the world community.
//iranian.com/main/2007/d-j-vu
The reality of the situation and the problem
by Bored iranian dude (not verified) on Fri Feb 01, 2008 01:54 AM PSTThe problem here is that Iran is involved in a proxy war with Israel. If Iran had pulled back from the conflict, accepted Israel, let them do what they want (the palestinians and the arabs), at the same time reforming our consitution to be a liberal and free country, the world would not have cared if we did have nuclear weapons even. Its sad that the IRI risk all this for the same people that cheered Saddam into killing us, and helped him at the same time. Israel and Iran have common security interests, they fear pan national arabism that both countries have been victim for in the past. Change the government, befriend Israel, you befriend the US and believe me, for some weird reason, suddenly, you will see tourist commercials for Iran on CNN and BBC even if we were testing nukes in the bahamas. Loko at Pakistan.
to: Yahya
by programmer craig on Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:56 AM PSTThe tone of Mr. Clawson's analysis is that Israel is justified and has
a god-given, natural right to bomb and destroy anything and anyone it
deems a threat to itself. With this logic, many countries should be
already bombing each other.
Israel has been in a constant state of war since it's inception 60 years ago. It was incredibly reckless of the Islamic Republic to make direct threats against Israel, particular threats that imply a genocide. It was also incredibly reckless for the Islamic Republic to involve itself in teh Arab-Israeli conflict (directly via Hezbollah and HAMAS and indirectly via political interference).
Israel is not the only nation that would consider teh Islamic Republic to be an enemy under these circumstances. virtually *any* nation would. Yourt comments seem to be trivializing the amount of real hostilty there is between Israel and Iran at this point in time.
The principal fallacy with this analysis is that it assumes Israel to be the center of universe in international politics.
Again, you are ignoring teh fact that is the Islamic Republic that is focussing on Israel, not Israel that is focussing on Iran. The Israelis have plenty of other things to worry about, and I'm sure they'd be quite happy if the IRI decided to mind it's own business. Don't you think so? Do you honestly believe the Israelis WANT to attack Iran, when they have all these other problems in their own backyard?
The US and Israel are allies. The IRIO appears to be an enemy of both teh US and Israel. It's not realistic to think that the US and Israel will do anything but work in concert when it comes to the IRI. And for that reason, I think Patrick's post hits the nail squarely on the head. A "European" solution will not necessarliy solve the problems between the IRI and the US/Israel, and those problems (the ones involving teh US and Israel) are teh ones that matter. If the Euros walk away, it would be foolish to think the US and Israel will as well.
The poor underdog......
by Yahya (not verified) on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:47 PM PSTThe principal fallacy with this analysis is that it assumes Israel to be the center of universe in international politics. Unfortunately, Israel-centric analysis and foreign policy have a blinding effect on pondits and politicians in the Western world. It pushes world's peace and security to the peripheries of political vision, enslaving them to the blind interests and wishes of Israel, a country with a horrible record of war crimes and violations of U.N. and international resolutions.
Mr Clawson's analysis suffers from the same illness that renders many other pondits' views ineffectual. At its core, it aims at inducing the idea that the world better find a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy or else the "poor underdog," Israel, will have no choice but bombing Iran. His is just one of many such attempts wrapped in pseudo-sophisticated, analytical rant.
The Iranian nuclear issue has many dimensions, most important of which relates to the national interest of the Iranian people. It is from this perspective that Iran's nuclear program does not make sense and must be dismantled. Any analysis that leaves this most important piece out, and instead gives Isreal, or any other country for that matter, the right to attack Iran is flawed and biased at its foundation.
The tone of Mr. Clawson's analysis is that Israel is justified and has a god-given, natural right to bomb and destroy anything and anyone it deems a threat to itself. With this logic, many countries should be already bombing each other.
Israel, despite what the pondits will have us believe, has been, since its creation, and will continue to be the biggest threat to world peace.
It is, furthermore, the only country in the MidEast to posses nuclear bombs.
With its continued military occupation of other people's lands, and with its militant, systematic, and long-standing violations of multiple U.N. resolutions, Israel would be at the top of the list if any country could be justifiably bombed for these violations.
Peace and security are precious commodities. In the words of Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, speaking of peace and non-violence: "in the modern world so determined to live by the bomb,
this is an alien concept."
A. Q. Khan sure helped Iranian nuclear weapons planners
by bradley (not verified) on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:41 PM PST//www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/k...
A.Q. Khan is a bad man.
//english.peopledaily.com.cn/200311/16/eng200...
Above is an article regarding the Israeli warplane at the top of the page.
US/Israel/Iran (Secret Alliance)
by LA ROCKSTAR (not verified) on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:28 PM PSTMr. Patrick
Before the Islamic Revolution, the secretary of state under Henry Kissinger, sold nuclear material to the Shah of Iran and last year, on his TV interview with Mr. Rose, he suggested to cut a deal with them forever. There is a new book out called US,Israel, and Iran: Secret Alliance. These three nations have been working together since 9/11 attacks and guess what? President Bush mentioned World War 3 two monthes ago. The whole world is becoming dangerous. We should not point out at Israel or Iran. Pakistan and India might exchange missles at each other very soon. China and Russia are the most dangerous alliance right now. Russia going back to dictatorship under the new prime minister. WE SHOULD NOT TAKE SIDES AND ONE PERSON'S OPINION.
My Idea
by Bright Idea (not verified) on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:19 PM PSTIf I were Olmert I would one day call Ahmadinejad and say to him, "Mr. Ahmadinejad, understandably, I am very concerned that you recently announced publicly that Israel should be wiped off the map. Be assured that we don't intend to allow this to happen. But since you have not exactly attacked Israel yet, we would like to invite you to Israel for a visit. Our intention is for you to be in close touch with this "occupied land" as you call it. We don't expect anything specific - just for you to take a closer look at the actual people, men, women, and children as they are playing on the street, before you order your army to attack. Our hope is that you will reconsider. Our hope is that once you walk amongst the people, real people with blood in their veins, you will hopefully change your mind. Mr. Ahmadinejad, something happened 60 years ago. Right or wrong, it did happen. I am wondering if you would agree to take a close look at this place now and as a favor to us, provide us with a plan on how to proceed from here. We do care what you have to say about this. In closing, nothing I have said changes the fact that if in fact IRI does attack Israel, we will respond severely but we want to see if there is anything that could be done to avoid such event, which I am sure even you don't consider as the best solution. Mr. Ahmadinejad, despite our difficult predicament, I am confident that your statements are out of your sincere care for your people. I just wish we could work harder at this to see if there really isn't something better we could do about it. I will ask my staff to make a really good Middle Eastern dish. I would like to have a lunch with a fellow Middle Eastern one more time before we start annihilation of each other - if God forbid it comes to that. Thank you for your time."
Have I lost my mind?
I wish you guys would get your head out of your asses
by Relax (not verified) on Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:04 PM PSTI know this is shock to you but IRI is not your real enemy - the imperialist is; the current US leadership is. Israel is being used to help create an environment where wars can be justified; where "patriot act" can be justified. To the manufacturers of weapons, Israel is just another customer. Don't think for a moment that the US is your ally. What you call "US" is the ally of nobody! If they were so concerned about the welfare of people in Israel, why are they completely ignoring their next door neighbor Mexico? You know what is their lates solution? To draw a 2500 miles war so that they can forget about the people in Mexico. Let them die - who cares. But across the planet they are concerned about their ally! Very interesting. Yet whatever they do for this ally somehow magically get this ally into more hot water than before. Must be their luck! No genius, you are targeting the wrong "enemy."