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.
A readable and descriptive exposition on the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare can be found at the following link:
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
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
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:
(2002 Christian Science Monitor);
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
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.
edit on 2-11-2011 by Kovenov because: title edit