The Human Conspiracy Blog-space

Agreed!
JBG

Egads, Jay. The U.S. presidency should NOT be a training ground for the untested & inexperienced.

European leaders now disagree with the comment below:
"Whatever the threat from Iranian Islamists -- and there may be a faction in government -- the present focus here in the US on Iran's enrichment program is almost certainly overblown, for reasons best known by the present
administration in Washington."

Europe is now every bit as concerned with this "overblown" threat as the US is..

As to the deterrence effect, the analysis below is not reasurring: "Now, the Islamists might not care, but the leadership motivated by power and greed, rather than extinction, might indeed care.."

MAY not care about retaliation? MIGHT indeed care? How much dare we gamble on a "may" and a "might"? The point of the discussion is that having NO nukes in the hands of a terrror-sponsoring regime is much safer for us and our friends than relying on a speculative deterrent effect.

And the final point made in the comment below is naive on its face: The "value [of nukes] as a blackmail card is mitigated by the rational consideration(s)..." Can we REALLY rely on a rational regime? Dare we assume reasonableness?

JBG

Yes, it's necessary to make a character assessment...And one could wish for a longer record...BUT, our
choices have narrowed. The future is always a gamble,
and, as you say, the stakes are high.

It's a mistake to equate "Islamists" (violent extremists) with Muslims. Islamists are a
threat to all legitimate governments around the world -- even Islamic
governments, for instance Egypt, which has some twenty thousand in confinement,
and Saudi Arabia, which has recently implemented a policy of intolerance
to Islamist cells after an attack on its own oil production
facilities.

Whatever the threat from Iranian Islamists -- and there may be a faction in
government -- the present focus here in the US on Iran's enrichment program is
almost certainly overblown, for reasons best known by the present
administration in Washington.

But Iran is no Soviet Union, no Russia. It certainly must be plain, or
must be made plain to them, if it isn't, that any
nuclear attack by rocket would almost certainly be knocked down in the
air, before it could be delivered, and retaliation would be certain and unavoidable.
It's a small country compared to Russia, and we, and probably Israel have more
than enough nukes to render the country unsurvivable. And our delivery
systems, after decades of development, are quite sufficiently
dependable. The same would go for Iran's delivery by any other means. We
would surely discover its origin, and any human life then remaining in Iran
would bear no resemblance to what they are used to now.

Now, the Islamists might not care, but the leadership motivated by power
and greed, rather than extinction, might indeed care, and the ordinary
people, most of whom just want to get an education, marry and have
children and live until a ripe old age, might care too.

A good case may be made that a country is actually safer without nuclear
weapons. Their value as a blackmail card is mitigated by the rational
consideration that blackmailers are usually eliminated, covertly or
overtly at the first opportunity. And it's undoubtedly safer to be off
the suspect list in case of a nuclear incident. And, I suppose, no
government can be assured of control of their own nuclear stockpile.

Experience?

One way to define intelligence is the ability to benefit by others'
experience.

The last 20 years has brought us a series of wars, two of them quick and
surgical, with UN approval, which achieved their stated objectives; and the
present one, with unclear and ever-changing objectives which we don't seem to
know what to do with.

So I don't count experience as worth much if it's really doing the same
thing over and over again, saying you're expecting a different result this time, but
secretly satisfied you're making your cronies rich while the populace
sleeps in your bed of confusing lies.

Character?

Yes, but moral clarity nourishes character, doesn't it?.

Gandhi had it, Abe Lincoln
had it. That's not something you can buy. But it's something a nation
greatly needs in times of great crisis, and sometimes is lucky enough to
recognize.

So, yes hope !

You either roll the dice and hope for the best,

or step out of the game.

We can all pray that the following hope (taken from the comment below) will bear out in the real world: "I believe the destiny of Man is a kind of universal transformation,
the contours of which are unknown. Meanwhile, we have the regrettable makeshift of military forces and, in the background, nuclear deterrents. I am no pacifist. Some things are worth fighting for. But only as a last resort."

The moral realists agree about both speaking softly and carrying a big stick: Diplomacy is effective when the alternative is clearly and rationally understood.

The attack on U. S. soil oil on 9-11-01 was a miscalculation, just as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Soviet nuclear missiles smuggled into Cuba. We can be diplomatic while making absolutely certain that everyone understands the limits of our tolerance in advance. That dreadful "only as a last resort" scenario can come pretty quickly in the real world, especially when the "less than rational' are on the other side....

The new European urgency is a result of just that -- they fully realize what the alternative must be... and hope to avoid it.

JBG

European leaders now disagree with the comment below:

"Whatever the threat from Iranian Islamists -- and there may be a
faction in government -- the present focus here in the US on Iran's
enrichment program is almost certainly overblown, for reasons best
known by the present
administration in Washington."

Europe is now every bit as concerned with this "overblown" threat
as the US is..

As to the deterrence effect, the analysis below is not
reasurring:

"Now, the Islamists might not care, but the leadership motivated by
power and greed, rather than extinction, might indeed care.."

MAY not care about retaliation? MIGHT indeed care? How much dare
we gamble on a "may" and a "might"? The point of the discussion is
that having NO nukes in the hands of a terrror-sponsoring regime
is much safer for us and our friends than relying on a speculative
deterrent effect.

And the final point made in the comment below is naive on its
face: The "value [of nukes] as a blackmail card is mitigated by
the rational consideration(s)..."
Can we REALLY rely on a rational regime? Dare we assume reasonableness?

JBG

==================================================================

Last I heard, the Europeans are indeed 'concerned,' as you say, and
are engaged in talks with the Iranians to resolve the issue, and have
reported they are making progress and are optomistic about the
outcome. At this point (using diplomatic language) they are inviting
the US out of these discussions (as unhelpful).
This is as of a couple weeks ago -- please update me if there is
something new.

The overall strategy, as I see it, is to convince the 'rational and
reasonable' elements within a country that is ideologically divided
that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by normalizing
relations with western nations.

These reasonable elements need to be supported and strengthened.
Nothing will chase Iran into the grip of the radicals faster than threats of force. Fear begets fear; when has it ever been otherwise?

So threats of force are not meant to be 'reassuring'...assured
destruction is a hell of a way to live. That's exactly the point:
for US as well as for them. That's the bottom line, the last ditch.
We ought to want to stay away from that as far as possible, and do
our very best to keep other countries from spinning down into that
pit also. Other nations should not want to destroy us, not because
they fear retaliation, but because they are not interested in doing
so. THAT is what I would call safety.

Far from being a naive ideal, we have a model of what this would look
like: modern Europe. Who would have thought? After millenia of
conflict, king against king, neighbor against neighbor, state against
state, after WWII Europe decided that they would do better in
peaceful alliance than constant conflict...

How do we get to such a place with Iran?

We have many urgent problems: the economy (present military
expenditures are unsustainable), many Americans are losing their
homes, many others find housing unaffordable; the environment is
being stressed on every front, topsoil depletion, desertification,
water shortages...the list goes on...;energy (our delay in developing
alternative energy sources has come to bite us). Now food shortages,
spiraling prices for groceries.

As this web of primary sustainability becomes more and more stressed,
it becomes less and less resilient. Witness Katrina, where government
seemed paralyzed to respond in a useful way to an incident of nature,
and indeed actually impeded local efforts at aid and rescue.

We just don't know what the next big catastrophe will be. What would
it take to start a cascade of catastrophes, toppling supply
structures, governmental agencies, public health facilities like so
many dominos? We just don't know.

That's the bad news...hardly reassuring.

The good news is on another level entirely:More and more people are awakening from the world nightmare,
discovering a way of being, a way of living that is radically
different, more self-sufficient, more satisfying, less wasteful, more loving, more in tune
with natural environments, with human environments.

What would love look like?

These people, these communities, these organizations are finding out.
I believe the destiny of Man is a kind of universal transformation,
the contours of which are unknown.

Meanwhile, we have the regrettable makeshift of military forces and,
in the background, nuclear deterrents. I am no pacifist. Some things
are worth fighting for. But only as a last resort. Listen to the
campaign speeches; listen to the commentaries of the day; be alert
when your own fear-button is being pushed. Ask yourself why they are
pushing it? Ask yourself why you are responding to it?

Fear and peace cannot exist together.
But a reasonable cessation of open hostilities can
be achieved on the way to peace, as we learn to recognize each other's
humanity -- and eventually brotherhood.