The Point of No Return

[nittany03]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/1/

Jeffrey Goldberg discusses how he thinks Israel will go about laying the smack down on Iran if we don't, and what the fallout will be (figurative, not literal). One of the scarier possibilities he brings up is what happens if we DON'T take action. To wit: the Arabs decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and it's better to ally yourself with the big bad wolf (Iran) than poke it with a stick and piss it off. How would that affect our energy policy, to say nothing of our work in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Then again, any attack could easily snowball into a regional war. Which we would fight with what money?

 

[mmx1]

To sum up the points Goldberg himself makes, there's a 50% chance Israel will launch an attack which its own military leaders think they can't pull off, to secure a temporary reprieve from a nuclear Iran, risking lethal reprisals to Jews abroad, a regional war, solidifying the Iranian regime, and creating a crisis that would dwarf Iraq and Afghanistan combined. To avert a threat that Netanyahu and Ehud Barak both admit is not direct attack, but that the fear that loss of security would launch an Israeli brain drain abroad and blunt Israeli hegemony in the region?

This, too, from the man that wrote a lengthy New Yorker piece playing up the Saddam-Al Qaeda tie based on the word of prisoner who couldn't even describe Kandahar, in which he claimed to have met Bin Laden.

There's quite a bit of posturing that well, Israel's going to do it anyway, we'll get blamed for it, and we can do it better so we should strike Iran. But where are the American interests in doing Israel's dirty work for them? And excuse me if I don't take an Arab foreign minister's "self-interested" assertion that an aerial strike on Iran would not be as complicated or messy as Iraq. It would not be as complicated or messy in the same ways, but it will make the region very interesting. In the Chinese sense of the word.

 

[SWACQ]

there's a 50% chance Israel will launch an attack

Not to disagree with you, as I know you pulled that from the article, but at face value that is somewhat misleading, as it implies a pending attack for those who don't know what that number really means. Was the analysis simply that Israel can choose to attack or not attack, with one outcome or the other having a 50% probability (1 in 2 chance) of occuring, or was it more in depth than that? Based on those two outcomes, there is always a "50% chance" Israel will launch an attack. There is also a 50% probabiity that Switzerland will attack Denmark. The likelihood of Israel attacking Iran may indeed be high, but I doubt there is a mathematical basis for calculating the actual probability. Incidently, the likelihood of Switzerland attacking Denmark is pretty low. Back to the math, if the 50% is based on the author asking "decision makers" for their opinion, and these decision makers threw out an average of 50%, that number is mathmatically worthless. Imagine asking some Congressman to through out a probability of something occurring. I would be incredibily impressed with any politician who knows the math associated with a probability, let alone is able to do so in their head during an interview. Add in the fact that the probability was specifically asked with respect to a date, and the math is more than I want to bother doing for a forum post, let alone something I could do in my head talking to a reporter.

 

[Flash]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/09/the-point-of-no-return/8186/1/

Jeffrey Goldberg discusses how he thinks Israel will go about laying the smack down on Iran if we don't, and what the fallout will be (figurative, not literal). One of the scarier possibilities he brings up is what happens if we DON'T take action. To wit: the Arabs decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and it's better to ally yourself with the big bad wolf (Iran) than poke it with a stick and piss it off. How would that affect our energy policy, to say nothing of our work in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Then again, any attack could easily snowball into a regional war. Which we would fight with what money?

A couple of countries might try an accommodate Iran a bit more (you see that with Qatar already) but I don't see many lining up behind or beside them even if they have a nuke. There is some long and very deep-seated issues between Iran and many of the Arab countries in the region for a variety of reasons, namely religious but also ethnic and a few other reasons too. Claims by some in the region that they would go running to Iran for protection are probably not much more than hyperbole and bluster, common in the region where both are a favorite pastime, over hot tea of course.

 

[exhelodrvr]

The majority of the Arab governments don't want Iran to have the bomb, and are OK (privately) with Israel addressing the situation.

 

[Spekkio]

The Arabic Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly content on killing each other; why would they suddenly be friendly toward the Persians?

 

[phrogdriver]

Perhaps more likely, some of the others start trying to get their own bombs, too. Iraq and Iran are the only majority Shia countries there. The Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are likely somewhat alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The Arabic Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are perfectly content on killing each other; why would they suddenly be friendly toward the Persians?

Not to be pedantic, but Afghans aren't Arabs. Most don't even really think of themselves as Afghans, but Pashtuns, etc. They're not 'killing each other' in either place, but settling scores between sects and clans.

Israel's a convenient enemy for the regional despots to rail against, but none of the Arab governments really believe Israel has hegemonic ambitions. They're genuinely scared of Iran, and there is absolutely no love for the Iranians. The danger isn't the Gulf states allying with Iran, but rather touching off a regional arms race. If Iran gets the bomb, and the Gulf states don't think they can trust us to contain them, bet your ass they'll go get nukes of their own spiffy quick. That many teetery governments with nukes is not a recipe for happiness.

 

[helolumpy]

A couple of countries might try an accommodate Iran a bit more (you see that with Qatar already) but I don't see many lining up behind or beside them even if they have a nuke. There is some long and very deep-seated issues between Iran and many of the Arab countries in the region for a variety of reasons, namely religious but also ethnic and a few other reasons too. Claims by some in the region that they would go running to Iran for protection are probably not much more than hyperbole and bluster, common in the region where both are a favorite pastime, over hot tea of course.

To add to Flash's point, the Iranians are Persian and the majority of the Muslim in 'that neck of the woods' are Arabs; two distinctly different cultures. The Persians tended to invade the Arab countries quiet often 'back in the day' and the Arabs haven't forgot that...

My bigger concern is the lack of Strategic Communication among the U.S. leadership. (I know big freakin' surprise there!) You have the WH COS with the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strat Comm (Rhodes) saying that all options are on the table; yet the top military officer is saying that attacking Iran is not an option. Can't we at least get everyone saying the same thing????

It's difficult to use diplomacy and soft power to coerce a foreign country to do something they don't really want to do, when we can't seem to get our story straight.

Then we see how we are driving Iran to have closer ties to Russia and China: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...nce-ship-costs-as-un-sanctions-take-toll.html

 

[mmx1]

Has Mullen said that? His most recent comments on Meet the Press last week were "I think the military options have been on the table and remain on the table" but to no one's surprise, that they're not anyone's first choice.

 

[helolumpy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5134362-503544.html

"Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a U.S. strike on Iran would be "very destabilizing," as would a nuclear Iran, during an assessment of American foreign policy in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Russia on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

The top military commander said America has "a very narrow window" of appropriate actions in the defiant country."

I take that as saying he's not advocating for a military option against Iran.

 

[Flash]

Perhaps more likely, some of the others start trying to get their own bombs, too. Iraq and Iran are the only majority Shia countries there. The Sunnis in Saudi Arabia are likely somewhat alarmed at the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

If we hint/suggest to Iran that the Gulf countries are under our 'nuclear umbrella' like Japan and NATO are that might obviate the need for them to pursue the bomb as it did with those countries (Britain and France the exceptions of course). It may have also played a role in our recent sale of F-15's to Saudi Arabia, who might also be looking for some more ballistic missiles soon too to offset the threat of Iran.

Oh, and in the sprit of Uncle Fester being pedantic, Bahrain is majority Shia as well, ruled by a Sunni royal family. That is a large part of the reason Bahrain has been so accommodating to us, especially militarily, for years.

 

[mmx1]

Helolumpy, I don't think those two positions are irreconciliable; he made the very much same points on Meet the Press, saying that we had military options on the table but "None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._admiral_mullen_on_meet_the_press_106579.html

It's difficult for a democratic society to bluff its foreign policy, but would you rather he kept his advice private? With or without Mullen the policy debate is happening in a very open way in the US (as the Goldberg article shows aptly).

 

[helolumpy]

Helolumpy, I don't think those two positions are irreconciliable; he made the very much same points on Meet the Press, saying that we had military options on the table but "None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._admiral_mullen_on_meet_the_press_106579.html

It's difficult for a democratic society to bluff its foreign policy, but would you rather he kept his advice private? With or without Mullen the policy debate is happening in a very open way in the US (as the Goldberg article shows aptly).

don't disagree with your thoughts; my issue is more with the United States government speaking with one voice. One of the ideas of Strategic Communication is that your words and actions are synchronized. (Do as you say)

I just don't seem to get the feeling that the US gov't (at the highest/strategic levels) all seem to be on the same page.
I think the Pres, VP, SEDEF, Chairman and COCOM all need to using the same speaking points paper to ensure we present a unified front.

If Iran senses that we are divided in our opions on what to do, they may try to exploit that division. It seems that all the 'bad guys' seem to be a whole lot more effective about Info Ops and STRAT COMM than we are.

So that's now what I'm unhappy about, not what Mullen said but the fact that it doesn't seem to synch up with what the administration is saying.

 

[mmx1]

If you think they're out of sync then I think you're taking an aggressive reading of the administration's stance. Emanuel, Rhodes, and Mullen all say explicitly that military force isn't off the table. None are advocating it as a desirable or likely outcome. The administration is aggressively denying the domestic perception or accusation that they have a priori rejected the military option, but I don't think anyone doubts that they don't favor it.