Opinions About Iran/Israel Tension

This thread's thesis stems from a recent report by Sky News Network entitled, Israel Considers Pre-emptive Strike On Iran. Moreover, I've chosen not to post this in the "Breaking News" forum given that a push by members of the Likud Party to attack Iran is not breaking news, per se. Instead, I'll offer my viewpoints on why I think such conflict is inevitable; what impact I think it will have on Americans; and why I am not necessarily opposed to such conflict given certain qualifications.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.

The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions.

source: news.sky.com...

A readable and descriptive exposition on the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare can be found at the following link: www.cdi.org... It is, of course, not the only site or reference available which describes this doctrine. It does, however, point out indirectly that there is no certitude about what is right and what is wrong in terms of pre-emptive warfare as defined by the international community.

In terms of my own viewpoint there is a useful tool that aids my thought processes when I consider the tensions that exist between Iran and Israel--namely, the Prisoner's Dilemma. Without going into detail about what the Prisoner's Dilemma is or says (in the event you're unfamiliar with its basic framework), I will suggest that two basic premises encapsulate the Prisoner's Dilemma corresponding to Israel and Iran: 1) Iran contends that it is not developing nuclear weapons; 2) Israel contends that Iran is endeavoring to manufacture nuclear weapons and is within "x time frame" of doing so. (Contrast: 1) The Khrushchev regime contended that it was not shipping nuclear weapons to Cuba whereas the Kennedy regime contended that it was; 2) The Bush regime contended that Saddam Hussein's regime was developing WMD whereas Saddam was silent on the matter for reasons that became known after he and his regime were deposed.)

Prudence requires that I ought not divide the respective populations of Iran and Israel against one another, but focus on the prevailing regimes who may or may not have support from segments of their respective population. The distinction between a regime and the population which it governs is, in my estimation, too often neglected (i.e. their ideas & beliefs concerning foreign and domestic policy do not necessarily converge). But beyond regimes and the population which it governs it is also important to note that communication and trust between Iran and Israel is virtually nonexistent. Summing the two premises with the lack of communication & trust that exists between these two regimes indicates to me that armed conflict is more likely to occur than not. I am not suggesting that a pre-emptive strike would be right or wrong from an ethical point of view, but only that the conditions as they exist now make it likely that armed conflict will occur.

I am not necessarily opposed to choices that either Iran or Israel make concomitant to their own national security. The recent ousting of Colonel Gaddafi forcefully indicated that a regime faces external threats when their governance does not accord with the prevailing consensus of either a global power or global powers. To the extent that Colonel Gaddafi was internationally recognized as Libya's head of state is not the point I wish to emphasize, but rather that a regime must strive to remain afloat inasmuch as ordinary people must also strive to keep their head above water. That is easier for some than others, and whatever the reasons for this is not a concern of mine either. Nations are sovereign & settle to equilibrium at their own pace & on their own terms (or at least that should be the case, in my opinion).

Having established this position I will now explain the condition for which I would not be opposed to a pre-emptive strike against Iran by Israel. Specifically, if we (as effected thru the U.S. Congress) ceased to provide all defense aid and unequivocally stated in the record that no implicit defense treaty with Israel exists, then I would not be opposed to Israel's pre-emptive action. Otherwise, the implication would be that the U.S. enters into either a de facto or declared(?) state of armed conflict with Iran. De facto to the extent that America would provide material & non material support to further Israel's cause; declared(?) to the extent that Congress will or will not make a declaration of war against Iran, or empower the Obama regime to use the armed forces in a contingency operation dubbed "whatever." (I often hear people talk about the "wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," but this is incorrect. The technical definition of those conflicts is dubbed "contingency operations" because Congress did not make a declaration of war as the body Congress proper in either circumstance. If you doubt this then ask to see the PERSTEMPO or DEPTEMPO of American military servicemembers. Actually, there is a MILPER message that directed recording agencies to enter a code for contingency operations "instead of" the code for war. As it stands I no longer have access to MILPER messages or recall the MILPER message number.)

Notwithstanding the de facto or declared(?) state of war that America would enter into were Israel to attack Iran under present agreement, it is also worth reflecting on some numbers to get an idea of costs incurred and realize that costs would rise: www.csmonitor.com... (2002 Christian Science Monitor); en.wikipedia.org... (Wiki); www.fas.org... (U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, Congressional Research Service, dtd. Sep 2010) ... to name a few.

The rebuttal I hear most often when referring to these numbers points out that foreign aid to Israel constitutes a small percentage of aggregate defense & diplomatic expenditures. Well, okay: these numbers don't make up a large percentage of defense & diplomatic expenditures. Nonetheless, these numbers court hazard that is reflected in Islamic frustrations felt toward America, which in some cases translates to extremism that is a significant cost in both diplomatic and defense expenditures. Unfortunately, this detail often receives minimal or no attention at all, and yet it underlies a sizable proportion of the frustration felt toward America. And I venture to speculate that should the current Israeli regime conduct a pre-emptive attack against Iran, America will not be viewed as attacking the nation of Iran, but the much more abstract nation of Islam (which it is already viewed as attacking). So the question I often ask myself as of lately is this: When is enough ... enough? Well, I think we passed that marker several years ago.

UK stepping up the action with possible missile strikes.

www.guardian.co.uk...

S&F for sure. Very well articulated and presented.
I am of the opinion, that Israel will eventually take on Iran. Israel has been screaming to the international community for a long time to do something about Iran. And no, sanctions don't count as "action" to Israel.
The real question everyone is asking is when. From the recent headlines one would think the 'time' is near.

And I like the way you differentiated between the nations governmaents and the citizens.

reply to post by highfreq


Yeah, I think the distinction between a regime and the populace which it governs receives scant attention. This is unfortunate too given that we can't really gauge the viewpoints of a nation as reflected in the people that, in my opinion, really matter. But ... I reckon that's just the way of the world.

Breaking news below-an attack may have just been averted due to this:

"US House panel approves tougher sanctions on Iran"

WASHINGTON - A US congressional committee approved tougher sanctions on Iran on Wednesday, hitting out at Tehran's central bank following an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington.

The bipartisan legislation has good prospects for clearing the House of Representatives in the near future. In the Senate, lawmakers in both parties are working on similar legislation, increasing the likelihood that some version will become law.

If Israel attacks Iran

I'm going tell my representatives in the House, Congress and et al, they can let Israel fix the mess they create.

Not to mention, I'm sick of being the big ugly giant in Israel's pocket.

M.

reply to post by princeofpeace


New sanctions against Iran may defer attack against Iran, but I wouldn't conclude at this point that it will prevent attack. The modern example being Iraq and imposition of debilitating sanctions after the Gulf War, followed by an inaccurate WMD casus belli, U.N. Res. 1441, and then the late evening of 19 March 2003.

Very correct sir- i should have edited my statement to say "Immediate attack on Iran may have been averted".

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by princeofpeace

 

New sanctions against Iran may defer attack against Iran, but I wouldn't conclude at this point that it will prevent attack. The modern example being Iraq and imposition of debilitating sanctions after the Gulf War, followed by an inaccurate WMD casus belli, U.N. Res. 1441, and then the late evening of 19 March 2003.

reply to post by Moshpet


Yeah, I hear ya.

At least in the homeland I'm uncertain what to make of the residential Zionists and Christian premillennialists whose evocative rhetoric occasionally imbalances common sense points related to this topic. Granted they are a part of the whole & ought to have an equal voice in matters, but some of them exhibit tunnel vision that skews reality from here to eternity which can't possibly be refuted or affirmed by standards mere humans generally employ. At any rate I mean to suggest that at some point an argument about "good and evil" surfaces and it's terribly difficult to pin down which of the two parties is evil. And then there are the hawks who become caught up in what I think of as operational euphoria. I mean if you throw around some military jargon and pin up an operational overlay with some neat colors, then some people's notion of self-importance increases exponentially, & no cost is too great to achieve a given objective. I'm going to "guess" that there are probably representatives and senators who fit this categorization, although I've never met and come to know a representative or senator well enough to be certain of this guess.

I thought we all knew WW3 was going to take place in Iran, or right beside it. The US has had a stiff one for Iran the whole time I have walked the earth, and say what you will, but there is something there TPTB want and it is not oil or to "save humans from an Oppressor". Everthing is starting to come together: prophecies, stargate, Disclosure, NWO, OWS, strange sounds, strange lights, take-over of the Middle East, earthquakes, nucleaur reactors, odd weather, Mr. Anti-Christ, laugh and mock all you want but all the pieces to the puzzle are scattered throughout ATS. Science and logic cannot explain ANY of these signs because Science is never engraved in stone. The smartest(heh) people on the planet constantly contradict and go against one another in "new evidence 'suggests'" claims. SUGGESTS. Look that word up in your Webster's or Roget's. If these so-called brilliant minds cannot explain what's going on behind the scenes-curtain-closed door then why bother quoting these fools and justifying their ignorance?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Thanks for the reply; moreover, I neither mocked nor laughed at Christians, Zionists, or New Age-like ideas. If you disagree then please cite where this occurred.

No, I was not aware that WW III would take place in Iran or right beside it. If that was a silent reference to the New Testament Book of Revelations then I will clarify that I think its interpretation is inconclusive (i.e. it's my opinion).

Addressing why I think brilliant minds are unable or unlikely to explain what is going on behind the scenes, I think it's reasonable to say that no one has access to all information and much information is imperfect. In other words, brilliant minds do the best they can, just as you and I do the best we can given incomplete and sometimes imperfect information available to us.

I'm going to decline looking up the word suggests given that my native language is English, and it is intuitively clear what suggests means to me and most all native speakers of English. In other words, I don't see where my use of suggest is ambiguous or vague. Also, I'm not making a scientific--well, if you wish to regard some of the examples I use to support my thesis, then casually I am probably employing the scientific method. In any case much of what I write about is offered as opinion (reference: Opinions About Iran/Israel Tension). So while I make effort to include positive statements about the world, I draw conclusions from those positive statements that are normative or based on my opinion. And it's perfectly fine if you don't agree with the opinions or conclusions I draw, but I don't agree that the methodology I use is flawed. If you want to make that case that it is then okay, but that would detract from the topic and is not something I will respond to at great length in this thread.

Cite where I mock or laugh at a particular group and I'll address it (I do sort of mock one group, but this group I mock does not lend itself to prophesies); otherwise, take it easy.