Readers’ Responses to Our Question (158)

Loss in humility of humans today by our mismanagement of the human condition shows that there are too many meglomaniacs, and too many wannabees - creating havoc and defying limits.

The impulse for no limits - in any context or industry - or government - is the desire to allow meglomania to rule.

Narcissists may be meglomaniacs in the making, but it is the meglomaniacs that leave the path of destruction as their calling card.

To Tom Wonacott

Well, actually they can do smth - but only step by step, implementing very limited measures. It may take too much time.

Saudis will support any attack on Iran - they hate each other, especially after the Iranian support for Hussein's war against Kuwait and after their latest attempts to establish control on the Iraq territory. Nearly all the Arabs feel like this.

I'd like to say that the strikes counter the Iran nuclear industry, unlike the war in Iraq, will be in fact justified by everybody. Or at least, the criticism will be very weak - mainly from Moscow and Beijing.

Al Vysotsky, Moscow, Russia :

The New York Times published an article recently indicating that some Sunni Arab countries supported US bombing of Iran to end their nuclear program (if the article is true). Saudi Arabia, in particular, appears to be vying for regional power with Iran, so the Arab split should be exploited by the US and Israel.

More than likely, the Arabs support SC measures against the Iranian program already. In my opinion, the Saudis stabilized oil prices (after reaching a peak late last year) to undercut the Iranian economy, but prices are on the rise again. How can this alliance put more pressure on the Iranians using the SC?

Tom,

Hezbollah was formed for the express purpose of removing Israel from Lebanon and keeping them out.
They would also like to get back the lands Israel has stolen and also get back the thousands of Lebanese held in Israeli Prisons.

The French helped us toss out the british and inspired us in many ways but they are not our "French masters".

Hamas has almost no significant ties to iran at all and no credible analyst maintains that. Israel, however, ( the ultra right wing portion of Israel, that is) would love for us to believe that they are all tied together (hopefully maybe even with al qeada) in a way that threatens the US AND Israel, in order to inspire us to go to war with Iran in the same way we were goaded into the ridiculus war with Iraq.

I seem to remember the rhetoric against iraq building in just the same way that your connecting all the dots that are not there with Iran. I seem to remember that every single threat that iraq was accused of turned out to be utterly untrue. Iseem to remember that those smae type of utterly spurious allegations led to a war that has only made mattters much worse than they were before.

Razing the settlements and ending the occupation is first and foremost, the morally correct position for the US to take. It is also the single most effective way to lower terrorist funding and recruitment and end the war on terror. That is why the Iraq Study group, Bush I, Clinton, Carter, and virtually every nation in the world agree with that position.

I am not afraid of Iran, nor do I think they are a credible threat to us or Israel. why not do whats morally right and then reap the benifits of all of the security and PR gains it will bring?

The only people who will be angry are the settlers, who could care less if more Israelis, Palestinians, or americans die as the result of their racism and religious and ultranationalist ferver.

They should have been sent packing decades ago, and if so, we would have likely not been visited with 9/11.

P.S. Bin Laden wrote that his inspiration for 9/11 came when he saw the towers full of innocent people being bombed by israeli Jets (they we gave them) as israel tried to assasinate the PLO members that had taken refuge in Lebanon. The occupation and the settlement movment have already cost the US and Israel Far too much.

CivicDuty

Hezbollah is a Shia Islamic organization that was molded to "...follow a distinct version of Islamic Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini..." (of Iran).

Hezbollah is politically active in Lebanon. They are trying to bring down the democratically elected government of Lebanon and are backed by Syria and Iran. Syria is implicated in the assassination of Rafik Hariri who was the former Prime Minister of Lebanon. Mr Hariri was critical of Syrian involvement in Lebanese politics.

Hamas is a Sunni Islamic terrorist organization funded by Iran and other Arab countries such as the Saudis. They are actively involved in the Palestinian government and recently took control of the Parliament. Hamas was engaged in a (military) power struggle with Fatta for control of the government.

1. The US will not "force" the Israelis to accept the Saudi initiative. The US has been a long time supporter of Israel, and in the recent war in Lebanon, the US did not even pressure Israel to stop the bombing, and the US was under great international pressure to do just that. In addition, the US will not cut off funding to the Israelis. In fact, in recent weeks, the US held back an arms agreement with Saudi Arabia because Israel objected (at least for right now).

2. Hezbollah and Hamas will both survive and probably continue to thrive even if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders. Both organizations will probably be given "hero" status due to their resistance to the Israeli occupation. Finally, both militias will be "there" in case the peace agreement falters.

Hamas will continue to push (militarily, possibly) for an Islamic State in Palestine. Neither Fatta or Hammas are truly interested in a democracy, but both will continue to vie for power with or without a peace agreement.

Will Hezbollah's militia disband? My guess is that with the current state of instability in the Middle East, that is, the war in Iraq (supported by Iran), the nuclear confrontation between Iran and the US, and the confrontation between the Sunnis and Shia, Hezbollah will continue to support her staunch Shia ally, and will not disband her military wing. In addition, the peace agreement could collapse, so Hezbollah will monitor that possibility.

3. Iran has enjoyed a rise in their power meter in recent times. They have supported Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrians against the Israeli occupation. They have stood up to the west by illegally developing a nuclear weapons program, and, most recently, they captured British sailors probably located in Iraqi waters and got away with a diplomatic coupe.

Iran has gained much status in the Middle East and has caused quite a bit of worry amongst the dominantly Sunni countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. They are vying for regional power.

In short, Iran, Hezbollah (especially) and Hamas will continue to enjoy a strong relationship and thrive regardless of whether a peace agreement is signed between the Arab League and Israel.

Iran, a persion nation, may sympathize with Hamas and Hezbollah, But so does just about every other Arab Nation in one way or another. Iran may provide some funding and assistance to Hezbollah, but so do many other Arab countries as well.

If you force Israel to relinquish all occupied territory to the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese, you will steal almost every bit of thunder that The current Iranian regime, Hezbollah, or Hamas have, and it will result in them all being completely marginalized.

If the US, A) Pulls out of Iraq in an intelligent manner B) gets tough with Isreal (which is really a form of tough love) and forces them to allow a palestinian state emerge on all currently occupied territories, quitting the occuaption and all settlements and C) forces israel to give back all other territories as outlined above, Iran will lose any support that they currently enjoy, and Hamas and Hezbollah will nearly cease to exist. Their support will vanish, because their primary missions will have been achieved.

It is simply not true that they are all commited to Israels destruction, and Iran only uses tough Rhetoric about Israel as tool, because the entire middle east is pissed off in a big way about the settlements and the occuaption and they can use that to the advantage of the current regime. Take the issue of the occuapation and settlements away from them (which is a very legitimate one, remember, WE agree with them on that one) and remove the threat that the Iraq War presents, and the current Iranian regime will fall at the will of it's own people.

To sum up: Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have little to do with each other, save that they all have beefs with israel, the majority of which are actually quite legitimate. Take those beefs away, and they will lose their funding power, recruitment power, and political power.

To Tom Wonacott

Tom,

Concerning future Iran's role in peace process. I agree, that for reaching progress we should divide Iranian's and Arab's ambitions towards Israel. But, on the other hand, simple isolating (like it's trying to be done in the Syrian case) is not a way out. 1)Iran has considerable influence on both Hezbollah & Hamas 2) Until Iran remains a threat to Israel (and also Israel - to Iran, concerning nuclear ambitions) we are not able to speak about the real peace in the region.

In fact, there is one important thing. Arabs may not like Israel, but their feelings toward Iran are not better. And it is the way for progress - Iranian nuclear threat frightens both Israel and Arabs. And it looks like an opportunity for common measures from the side of SC, Israel and Arabic countries. Such limited cooperation may lead to future progress in the other areas.

AM

Iran is not a necessary element to peace (from my perspective) but they are relevant since they are a primary sponsor of terrorist activities against Israel (and certainly could be in the future).

I am sure that it is the shear number of countries that comprise the Arab League that is the incentive for Israel. Obviously, it would help if Iran was a member since they are the greatest threat to Israel and their most determined enemy.

Tom "Anonymous" Wonacott: We are apparently in more agreement than I thought. To be sure, once there is an agreement in place (that includes of course Hammas as a signatory), the threshold is crossed between resistance and terrorism. The main obstacle to cross, after that, is provocations by the fanatics who want to continue the conflict. Once there is an agreement, and it must involve Syria, Iran's opinions become irrelevant, as should mine ;)

The primary comment I have, however, is about the 'timetable': It cannot be tentative, incremental, or long. Any of these will give fanatics the opportunity to incite violence.

By the way, I still place the burden of preserving the peace on Israel: the 'settlers' are Jews; many of the Israeli parties want to assimilate the occupied territories; and Israel continued the assassinations even when Hammas observed a cease fire. Let us not forget that there are Israeli 'military' operations throughout the West Bank as we blog. And given Israel's history, they will want a 'victory' of sorts before any agreement takes effect (witness that in the days before the cease fire went into effect this summer they carpeted Lebanon with cluster bombs).

Whatever Palestinian fanatics do, by comparison, will be isolated acts with limited impact.

Tom,

As has been proposed many times in the UN, a UN peace keeping force would serve as an excellent buffer between the settlers, the Palestinians, and the IDF. Send in a large enough force for long enough to oversee the transition, and you will minimize the violence.

Keep in mind that many settlers will not go without a fight, waged against the Palestinian civilians and the IDF, so the IDF and EU based UN forces will have to deal with the terrorism committed by the settlers themselves, while a largly Arab peace keeping force deals with the Palestinians.

It may take a few years to clear out all the settlers, and there will be some bloodshed, but it will mark thed begining of the end of the war on terror. The US will save trillions and Israel and the US will regain the moral highground.

AM (thanks for the compliment, and, of course, likewise. Actually I was leaving for work and posted that "anonymous" accidentally. I was just kidding about the war...)

There is no point arguing all your points because we've been through most of that before (especially what we label terrorist), but it is interesting to focus on what it will take for Israel and the Arab League to sign a peace agreement and keep the agreement from disintegrating. Since the parties are going to meet, the results of the coming meeting are interesting to speculate on and really do give us some hope for real progress, albeit small.

1. I have said this three or four times, but the offer by the Arab League appears fair, reasonable and attainable.

Israel is offered recognition and full diplomatic relations with all members of the Arab League. Iran is the only significant non member and I'm not sure how they will respond to an agreement, but Syria is aligned with Iran so I assume Iran will recognize Israel(?).

2. Israel must give up all land and return to the legally recognized 1967 International border. They must tear down all settlements on occupied land.

To me, there are some obvious problems associated with the proposal that may prevent the agreement or could cause the agreement to collapse.

1. Timetable to withdraw or tear down the settlements.

The settlements in the West Bank contain 250,000 (+/-) Israeli settlers. The settlements around Jerusalem contain about 200,000 Israeli citizens. Relocating this many people will not happen overnight, and any agreement will allow a significant amount of time for people to relocate. That is really a minor problem, it would seem.

2. Terrorism. Security is the key ingredient for a successful agreement between Israel and the Arab league not only for the sake of Israeli citizens, but also for the liberation of the Palestinian citizens.

Terrorist will try to undermine the agreement between Israel and the Arab League (even to you AM, they are terrorist at that point). It will be incumbent on the Palestinians to provide security in the Palestinian State. There are many Islamic factions that work independently and are a threat even if, for example, Hamas agrees to a cease fire. The various organizations must be reigned in to protect their former enemy from attacks that could undermine the agreement. Even virtual police states such as Saudi Arabia occasionally have successful attacks, so security must be exceptionally tight.

Security is also extremely important to liberating the Palestinian population from the Israeli reaction to terrorist attacks. Awhile back, the New York Times ran some articles about the plight of the Palestinian people from the suffocating measures taken by the Israelis to counter terrorist. True liberation cannot take place until this condition is alleviated. Ultimately, and I consider it more important that disbanding the settlements, the Palestinians must have free movement between Gaza and the West Bank. None of this, also, will happen overnight.

What are your thoughts?

To 'anonymous': No war has broken out. It is a civil discussion. For example, I know Tom and I disagree on some topics, but I find his arguments stimulating. We also have yet to exchange name-calling, which of course always helps.

PS: My arguments with myself are actually much more vigorous. I am very difficult to convince ;)

AM, CivicDuty, BobL

I think a war has broken out on PostGlobal....

Tom, Bob, CivicDuty: An interesting discussion. Here are a few of thoughts on my part:

1. Israel has been in violation of civilized norms for decades. The settlements, along with the 'wall', must be dismantled, and not in a matter of years, but much shorter than that. They are part of a land grab that, together with a road network based on apartheid, creates an oppressive and suffocating condition on the Palestinians. Calling any reaction to that 'terrorism' is ludicrous and, frankly, hypocritical. The terrorism is being committed by a state (Israel) with our (US) support (since we fund Israel to the tune of 3 - 4 billions every year).

2. Israel's constant assassinations of Palestinians with repeated civilian deaths and casualties (our so-called 'collateral damage') is pure terrorism. By their own admission, which is the only evidence we in the US will accept by now, the Israelis use civilians as shields! Any reaction to that is resistance.

3. Hammas observed a cease-fire that they declared on Israel for more than 1 year, before winning the elections last year. Despite that, Israel continued the assassinations and abominations on the Palestinian population. It is, therefore, incumbent on Israel to offer assurances that Israel will cease the violence against civilians. That also means that Israel must rein in the Jewish fanatics who insist on new settlements in the occupied territories, with Israeli government funding, and of course military protection.

4. Israel must also end the occupation of all lands. Last summer, if Hizballah crossed an international border to attack an Israeli post, it was the border between Lebanon and Syria. The post was on occupied territory. Israel must also make amends for the 1 million or so cluster bombs it dropped on Lebanon during the last three days of that fiasco. Those are a crime intended only to hurt civilians.

5. Lastly, Hizballah was created in reaction to Israel's first invasion of Lebanon. That is also when we went in to bail Israel out. All that means is that we were stupid back in 1982 to go to Lebanon, and we compounded the stupidity with idiocy in 2006 by turning a blind eye towards Israeli crimes. Of course the Bush administration has compounded stupidity and idiocy on top of bigotry these past 6 years; something that will take many years to recover from.

6. Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians in its prisons. That regime is so well ingrained that some of the prisoners were BORN in prison! Talk about violence against civilians!

The sum total of this is that the Palestinians, and in some measure the Lebanese, must be given an incentive to reduce attacks on Israel. As long as they are oppressed, and we insist that they must submit to the oppression before we even discuss anything with them, of course there will be resistance, which translates to violence. Violence against civilians as well as others. Don't forget that it is the Palestinians who were evicted from their homes at US, British, and Zionist insistence, not the Germans & Austrians.

BobL

Of course, everyone getting rid of nukes is the best idea, but verifying that there were no nukes in the world would be nearly impossible. Also, this would increase the possibility of a war between countries (including the powers) because nuclear bombs are a great deterrent to war.

If everyone had a nuclear bomb, then the world would probably see far fewer wars, but if there was one, all hell would break loose, or at least, we would see millions killed within a two hour period. Terror networks would be more likely to acquire a nuclear device.

It may be hypocritical for the world powers to limit the spread of nukes, but once a country has nukes, that fact probably won't change. In the case of Iran, which is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, you sum it up best with your reply to "civic duty".

"...the best foreign policy the US and other western democracies can implement in the ME is too only lessen the violence that will continue to take place in this region."..."

There are several options (maybe you have some others):

1. Allow Iran to have nuclear weapons which will surely threaten an arms race in the ME.

I obviously don't support option option number one, but if you believe that nukes are inevitable, then that option is the best. The spread of nuclear weapons also will make the acquisition of these weapons by terrorist groups more likely. I do not believe (for example), even if Manhattan is nuked by terrorist, and we are 99% certain where they obtained the bomb, that we will be able to nuke the country in return. We would be responsible for killing millions because of the actions of a few. I am not sure that I could support a nuclear retaliation in that case.

2. The world becomes serious and applies strangulating sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The UN estimates that sanctions brought against the Iraqis prior to our invasion resulted in the deaths of 1,500,000 million people which included 500,000 children. Sanctions have the goal of regime change in most cases, but it can also harden the targeted population. Ultimately, the average everyday person suffers from sanctions, not the leaders, and there is no guarantee that this will work.

3. The US bombs Iranian facilities thus delaying their acquisition of Nukes.

While bombing the Iranian facilities will delay their nuclear program 10-15 years, world-wide repercussions could be very intense. That includes making restless Muslim populations more restless, increasing terrorism and recruitment of terrorist, and a potential escalation in the confrontation by Iranian responses to the attack. In addition, we may have to bomb them again in 10-15 years.

If the goal is prevention, then option number three is the most humanitarian but also the most dangerous.

Choose your poison. Bush is reviewing the very same options as you and I (thankfully, he has Cheney to help with the decision).

Tom and Bob,

A UN peacekeeping force, ( possibly of largely Arab origin) deployed to safeguard settlers as they are removed and to keep both Israelis and palestinians out of the fray would be a great solution. It's working fairly well in Lebanon right now. They would stay as long as it took for the Palestinians to police themselves. That might be years, but they would be vastly more productive years than the previous 40 plus years spent by the settlers as they sowed the seeds of arab terrorsim around the world and especially towards the US

Yes there would be violence before it was all over. But when we dropped the atomic bomb on japan, we understood that there would be "violence" as a result (say when the bomb hit the ground) but we assumed that it would prevent a great deal more violence on both sides in the future.

We are stuck in the "war on terror" precisely because our governemt has lacked the will and foresight to prevent the Israelis from digging their own graves (and potentially ours) in the form of the settlement movement and 40 plus years of occupation.

We suffered 9/11 in no small part because of our tacit and not so tacit support of the Israeli settler movement and occupation, even though we officially condemn it.

regarding Hebollah, they had no beef with the US until we broke our role as peace keepers in the region and started shelling their positions from an aircraft carrier. They retaliated only after that with the Marine barracks bombing. If you dont believe it, take it up with Colin Powell. It's in his book.

Their sole desire is to keep Israel out of Lebanon and to get their 9000 prisoners back. they were formed in order to remove Israels occupation of lebanon. If Israel stops leveling the country every several decades, that might help with hezbollahs paranoia.

Israel ran raids into gaza and the west bank ( and into Lebanon as well, although causing no casualties there at that time)and killed literally scores of innocent people, many of them small children, shortly before some Israeli soldiers were ambushed and taken prisoner by militants in Gaza. Very shortly there after, Hezbollah also ambushed Israeli soldiers and took a few prisoner. In the past, these mutually inspired border skirmishes resulted in Prisoner exchanges.

However, this time, Israel attacked the entire nation of Lebanon in response, displaced millions, killed thousands, and did untold billions of dollars of damage, not to mention almost irreparable damage to the good standing of the US in the region. They lost the war and failed to retrieve their soldiers. This in turn emboldened the Iraqi insurgency who saw Israel (and thus the US, since we provided weapons and support) get their ass kicked by a local insurgency, which made our situation in Iraq a great deal more difficult. So, the prisoner exchange, which would have sufficed in the first place, is still being negotiated, and once more, we are dragged into a lose lose situation as the result of the Israeli settler movement and the occupation.

There were 25,000 US citizens in Lebanon before the war, vacationing, doing business, and visiting relatives. They were evacuated not because of any threat from Hezbollah, but because of the indiscriminate and vastly out of proportion bombing campaign that the Israelis unleashed upon Lebanon.

So another conflict in the occupied territories inspires a war which then nearly destroys a once US friendly Government (and country) and you prefer to blame it on Hezbollah? even though Israel is completely to blame for deciding to go to war instead of a simple prisoner swap?

We should not be cowering in fear of our allies, the Israelis, hoping that they dont start pointless nuclear wars (with Iran) or pointless conventional wars (like Lebanon). We should be reigning them in, demanding that they act according to the standards that WE demand, otherwise we should cut off EVERY PENNY they recieve form us until they comply, and trust me, they would comply.

Taking that position would do more for US standing in the region than the best possible outcome in Iraq could ever provide, and it would make Israel a safer place, the US a safer place and would truely open the door for real peace in the middle east for the first time, but that is the absolutely necessary first step before that can happen.

So how about it? Why not ride out a spike of violence now (but held to managable levels by a huge UN peacekeeping force) in order to prevent 40 more years of violence and damage to our nation, our national image and our national soul?
We brought down south african apartheid only because it was morally wrong to do otherwise.

When the Israeli settler movement has cost us and the israelis so much for the last 4 decades, and is considered to be even MORE morally corrupt than apatheid by almost the entire world, what prevents us from doing every thing we can to shut it down, knowing that peace is impossible without doing that first?

Civic Duty

"...Almost The entire world and every HONEST US analyst agrees that they should go. What more do you guys need? why would you support their existance for even one more minute?..."

Although I am a supporter of Israel, I have stated many times that there will never be peace until Israel moves back to the Internationally recognized 1967 border.

There is no doubt that a Israeli-Arab peace agreement will reduce terrorism in the Middle East, and nothing could be better for the Middle East and the world, than full diplomatic relations between Israel and the countries comprising the Arab League.

If a peace agreement is signed, however, Bob and I have stated the obvious, and that is, terrorism against Israel will continue, and, in fact, there might be a spike in violence by those who oppose the agreement. Many Arabs/Persians will not accept Israel and never will, and will do anything to undermine an agreement.

Dismantling of the settlements will not happen overnight. There will be a long period where the agreement will be vulnerable to failure, and it will not take much for the agreement to collapse.

Who will make sure that Israel is not attacked by the various Islamic terrorist organizations that will not recognize Israel even after an agreement? In other words, will the Palestinians be able to control terrorism within their own territories? The Israelis will not cede that land while being targeted by terrorist, that is for sure, and my guess is that they could care less what the Iraq Study Group said...

Just for the record, the war in Lebanon was started by Hezbollah (and Hamas), an international terrorist organization responsible for more American deaths than any other terrorist organization prior to 911. Hezbollah is currently trying to bring down the democratically elected Lebanese government (with Syria's and Nancy's help).

Finally, I wouldn't consider cutting off funding to Israel until the Palestinian terrorist (or resistance depending on perspective) quit targeting civilians to kill. While the occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law, so is the targeting of civilians.

Civicduty,

Thank you so much for putting words in my mouth I never said or even implied. Take a deep breath and repeat after me, "BobL-VA is against the settlements. In fact BobL-VA doesn't see any bright and shiny future for Israel. BobL-VA believes the best foreign policy the US and other western democracies can implement in the ME is too only lessen the violence that will continue to take place in this region."

I'm neither pro or anti Israel or Muslim. I'm an outside observer who has looked at the history from Balfour through today. The best indication of what will happen in the future is based off what has transpired in the past. 60 straight years of violence by both sides can lead a rational person to believe there may just be a problem here that really isn't fixable. If the problem can't be fixed the best one can hope for is to mitigate the damages.

The nuclear issue came up because I am scared to death if the Muslim world can pull together enough resources to go after Israel then Israel will counter with nukes to protect it's existence. I'm not scared of the Iranians. I am scared of the Israeli's. I think both the US and Russia should jointly state that any nation that is responsible for firing off a nuke against another country will be wiped from the face of this planet in short order. The nuclear option must be taken off the table.

Tom and Bob,

You grossly underestimate the impact that the settlements and the occupation have on the situation in the Middle East.

That is why leaders from every nation on the earth with very few exceptions condemn them and the occupation that supports them.

That is why the Iraq Study Group indicates that no meaningful advances can be made in the war on terror, in Iraq or anywhere else WITHOUT ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict first.

That is why Bill Clinton refered to them as the Philosophical underpinning of Middle Eastern Terrorist recruitment.

That is Why Tony Blair has told congress several times now that there will never be an end to the war on terror until there is an end to the settlements and the occupation.

Thats why Carter agrees. Thats Why Bush I tried to cut off all US foreign aid to Isreal until all settlement activity was ceased (but was undermined by congress and som of his own advisors).

And finally, since it HURTS US security by needlessly enflaming terrorism, Hurts Israeli security, accomplishes absolutely nothing of value except to please the racist, ultranationalist and religiously fanatical supporters of the already dead notion of greater Israel, and is, as Desmond TuTu says, "worse than Apartheid" it is simply the morally and logically correst move, and every minute that we hesitate in cutting off all funding that might support it in any way only adds to the death toll.

Regarding the other Arab nations, consider our ally's, Germany and Japan. I seem to remember some sort of minor spat that we had with them not so long ago (relativeley speaking) and we seem to get along with them fine now. It might have seemed unimaginable at the time, but please consider that no nation has been at war with Israel for quite some time, and yet they managed to literally destroy Lebanon for a second time in an effort to get a few soldiers back, (they hold about 9000 Hezbollah in Israel) and still managed to lose the war. Thier current tactics are becoming untenable. Furthermore, the entire thing relates back to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict as well, and would have been avoided completely if Israel had acted upon the wishes of the mojority of its people and started a withdrawl from the West Bank, in coordination with the Palestinians and a UN peace keeping force, suchas the one that is working very successfully in Lebanon now.

Face it, the settlements and occuaption are the engine of Middle Eastern terrorism, and are so morally corrupt and ill advised that even WE and the majority of Isrealis cannot support them. If razing them and ending the occupation was only 20% effective at reducing terror ( a gross underestimate according to most analysts, including Blair, and the Iraq study group), it would still be a win win for every one, except the settlers, who even still could care less about how many other Israelis, Palestinians or Americans die as the result of their Heinous actions.

Almost The entire world and every HONEST US analyst agrees that they should go. What more do you guys need? why would you support their existance for even one more minute?

Tom,

A country like the US and Russia and China and Britian and Israel can't go running around the world telling everyone it's bad to have nuclear weapons. It's the classic do as I say and not as I do attitude. It's hypocritical beyond belief. It assumes the countries that want them for any reason aren't good enough to have them.

If the US or any other nuclear weapons country was really interested in preventing nukes from this planet they would dismantle their own stockpiles. This obviously isn't happening so it's just too hard to take anyone serious over this issue.

Tom,

I don't know how to break this to you, but I'm against all wars. Nuclear or otherwise. I know you're shocked!

I've just been trying to make the point that "peace" and the "ME" have nothing in common. I don't see where a bunch of dreamers continuing to find a "peace solution" to a situation that doesn't have one is good foreign policy. I'm much more pragmatic then that. I'm interested in trying to contain the violence as much as possible through the use of positive foreign policy actions and economic incentives. Will it work? Probably not to a 100%, but it's a better approach then we've been deluding ourselves is possible. I really believe the best the US and the rest of the Western Democracies can do is slow down the violence and spend many, many years in limiting the violence. I don't believe we can stop it, but hopefully if we play our cards right we can mitigate the damage. It's not a perfect solution, but then again I don't believe a perfect one exists.

One thing I do know is the majority of the Arab world now has a more negative view of the US then Israel according to a recent poll. That's not the direction we want to go in. We can't fight a billion Muslims so we better learn how to deal them as adults.

PS: Yup, I'm a card carrying member of the NRA. (just kidding)

BobL

"...Pulling back to the 67 borders is a good start for the Arab world, but it will be by no means the end of this conflict..."

Besides Israel having to give ground that it by no means wants to give, how does the state of Palestine provide security for the Israelis against terrorist organizations that just do not want Israel in the Middle East (many that probably reside in the West Bank or Gaza today). These are large obstacles to peace. As you said, even if Israel moves back to the 67 borders, it will be a long time until real peace is achieved.

Civic Duty,

What's the first thing many Arab nations did when Israel "became a nation"? They attacked them in I believe 1947 and were driven back. Now what on the face of this piece of ground we call earth makes you believe the majority of Arabs (Muslims) are willing to live side by side with a Jewish State or a Christian State? We don't even have to mention the number of Muslims who were displaced in 1946-48 to make room for this new state.

Pulling back to the 67 borders is a good start for the Arab world, but it will be by no means the end of this conflict. Even the Israelis know this and act accordingly. Good luck with your thoughts of peace in the ME. You'll need it.

BobL

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You work for the gun lobby?

The answer to your question is a two parter:

1. Some never will. Two hundred years from now, there will be Arabs/Persians that will not accept Israel.

2. You keep telling me that the Arabs are intelligent (as if I don't know), but then you treat them like they are stupid.

How about the economic benefit from regional trading (arms for example, just kidding)? How about no wars, no threat of wars, no nuclear arms race (hopefully)? How about a region where you have diplomatic relations with all your neighbors? Mostly because like everyone else on the planet, they are probably sick of the entire mess called the Middle East!

The offer by the Arab League is truly a workable peace agreement. Considering that the Israelis occupy Palestinian land indicates, to me, that they are very serious about peace. A better question to ask is why should the Arab League even offer this? Most Arabs, it appears, are willing to accept Israel (Is Iran?).

I don't believe that countries extolling the dangers of nuclear weapons or a nuclear arms race is fear mongering. Do you remember the Cuban missile crisis? An arms race is dangerous. Why do you think China was so concerned about North Korea's nuclear test? Why do you think the Sunni countries and Israel are so concerned about the Iranians getting nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are also a big deterrent to war. That doesn't mean that if everyone in the world has them, the world is safe from war. OK, there hasn't been a nuclear war yet. Would you prefer otherwise?

P.S. At least you can't blame the "fear mongering" from nuclear weapons on "dumb and dumber".

Almost every single arab nation just offered to officially recognize Israel if they pull back to 67 borders (give back the west bank and east jerusalem) and come up with some just solution for the right of return, even recognizing that no one might ever be allowed t actually return to Israel as long as the people involved are faitly compensated.

So suggesting that peace is unobtainable is rather ridiculus. The beef that the vast majority of the world has with Israel, including the US, is the occupation and the settlements.

Take that daily horror out of the picture, and you will see Israel fall into the good graces of virtually every single nation on earth.

Any attack on Israel after those conditions were met would be acted upon aggressiveley by the entire world, including many arab nations.

You will also see the recruiting and fund raising power of every single radical Islamic or arab group that supports terror plummet to a fraction of their current levels.

This is not my personal observation, but rather the conclusion of the Iraq study group, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bush I, Tony Blair, and virtually the majority of the populalation of the planet, including a majority of Israelis and a majority of Jewish Americans.

Our biggest obstacle will be our own congress, because we must cut off all funding to Israel until they comply with the will of the majority of their own people and remove the settlements and quit the occupation entirely. Once that is accomplished, Israel will find that is no longer in need of our monetary or military support because the increase in tourism alone will make them vastly wealthier than they have ever been, not to mention that foreign investment and their own thriving tech centers will take off.

THE ONLY reason they need our support is because they have tried to sustain a 40 year occupation and settlement movement that has done nothing but INSPIRE terrorism and anti Israeli sentiments, and we, the US (via congress) has helped to keep them impoverished and isolated by ginving them just enough money to sustain this madness for decades.

The settlements are morally reprehensible, and need to be razed. They give a false legitimacy to every one of the groups that use terror to combat western influence in the region, or , to paraphrase Bill Clinton, they provide the "philosophical underpinning for Terrorist recruitment in teh Middle East".

BobL-VA & Tom Wonacott: Hello.

There are more than enough fanatics, on each side of each issue. We cannot gear policy or behavior to them, because they will never be satisfied. Instead, all we can do is work around them and slap them (hard) when they cause physical harm. We must also stop using them as an excuse for NOT facing up to the solution of problems (this has been our 'policy' towards the Middle East).

This has become, again, a discussion about Israel. The only practical alternative right now on the table is the 2002 proposal by Saudi Arabia. Hopefully Israel will accept it this time, and we will impose our 'will' on Israel to actually go through with it. (I put 'will' in quotes because when it comes to Israel, the US position is that Israel is protecting us and therefore we must yield to the slightest whim, comment, and real or imagined by us desire of whatever government Israel has at the time - not a comment on Israel, but a comment on the poverty of will and imagination in our politicians). An arrangement that actually addresses the Palestinian condition is the only solution to the resistance there (I will not use the term terrorism) and is a necessary condition to improving our status in the Muslim world. (The other necessary condition by now is Iraq).

PS: Note that this will not solve the issue of 'terrorism'. The terrorists we should be fighting hate the Muslim regimes as much as they hate the non-Muslim regimes.

Tom,

Arms races don't kill people. It's the use of arms that kill people. We learned this with the Soviet Union. We essentially had an arms race that ruined them fiancially. They couldn't keep up with our expenditures. Not a single one of the 15,000-20,000 nukes developed at that time were ever set off in anger.

Remember the evil communists? That bunch of fanatical whack jobs? Didn't turn out that way, did it? Even someone who would remove his shoe and pound it on his desk at the UN screaming, We will bury you....." didn't fire off a nuke. (Oh, by the way, the actual quote was, "We will bury you economically and politically," however the US just misquoted Nikita to engage in what? Yup, you got it, fear mongering.)

Here's a question for you. Why should the Arab world accept Israel and move forward towards stablizing their own region? Please don't come back with 1. The British and Americans deemed it in the best interest of the Jews. 2. Because it's been there for 60 years 3. It's their historical homeland. None of these answers addresses my question. Also, forget about the UN. They weren't really part of this decision. I've thought about this question a great deal and I've never been able to answer it so I wish you luck.

AM

Good morning.

In my discussions with Bob, He noted I used the word fanatic a lot, and he was right, but it applies as well to Israel. Israel has many fanatical people.

I don't believe Olmert is the guy to get peace done simply because he has no power now. First of all, talking to Abbas alone will lead nowhere. Meeting with the Arab League is a good step though. Israel needs to look long and hard at this proposal and not just discard it as unworkable.

You might be right that it is inevitable that many Middle Eastern countries will have nuclear weapons in the near future. In that case you are right. Why do anything?

But, I don't necessarily agree. Oh, I believe that bombing Iran would have world-wide repercussions. It is a dangerous option, but it is less dangerous than a Middle Eastern arms race. The New York Times ran an article (Saturday) indicating Arab League support for a US strike against Iran. That was a shock to me.

Thanks for the post.

Tom Wonacott (April 14, 2007 7:33 PM): Hello again. You have a good memory. I was born in Egypt and grew up in The Sudan. But I am now an American of Hellenic (Greek in English) descent. Darfur is a discussion on its own right. The Sudanese governments have much to explain, but I am very suspicious of crusading Westerners. (Actually it is the 'crusading' aspect that makes me suspicious - the Crusades were a disaster for everyone in the region, especially the Christians who got slaughtered with equal abandon by both sides - both then and now, witness what has happened to the Christians of Iraq and the Holy Lands for that matter.)

But back to the topic at hand: We cannot take the discussion off the US, since it is the US who is asking 'who is running Iran'. That makes the 'moral authority' of the US an issue, as well as its motives. Are we going through a replay of 1953 when the US/Britain imposed a government of their liking in Iran, and then turned a blind eye towards its excesses? People do not revolt against authority for nothing.

I gather that you support the idea of the US bombing Iran. I do not. It will at best delay the inevitable, and gain us an enemy to boot. That will be an enemy who is justified in launching a attack against the US.

Lastly, you keep bringing up Israel. If Israel is attacked, then let Israel defend itself. A real or perceived threat against Israel is not a reason for the US to go to war, or attack anyone for that matter. If Israel is such a key component of our policies, and we are apparently fond of UN resolutions and sanctions, perhaps we should first insist that Israel abide by all the UN resolutions. That will establish us as a legitimate observer, rather than partisan. (PS: that means we require Israel to dismantle all settlements even in the West bank & Jerusalem; dismantle the 'wall'; etc.). I think we need to do something along those lines, but that is not a factor for whether we go to war.

BobL

I am not confused about the ME, only about how to reconcile what you told me. You said "...until the Arabs can come together for the sole purpose of over running Israel and returning it to the Palestinians (if there are any left by then). It might take the Arabs 50 years to do this and it might take them 200 years to do this, but you can go to the bank on the fact they will continue down this path...". I take that statement to mean the Arabs will never stop until Israel is destroyed. That is a fanatical position to me. The only thing more fanatical is if they use nuclear weapons to reach their goal.

The Arab resentment is understandable (and not fanatical), but the Jews have been there for thousands of years also. It is not like they came over on the Mayflower.

Anyway, I disagree with your basic premise. Maybe I'm just too much of an idealist, but the offer by the Arab league seems, on the surface anyway, to have some potential. Will peace with the Arab League make everyone happy? No, there will be many extremist (Iran(?)) such as Bin Laden, that will never accept peace with Israel.

It is also easy to predict the peace talks will fail, and there will be another war. It has always been that way in the past, but sometimes extraordinary leaders in extraordinary times take steps that challenge the status quo (no, not Hillary). Anwar Sadat, in my opinion, was just such a leader. Other Arab countries followed in Egypt’s footsteps. Many, if not most Arabs, resented Sadat’s peace with Israel and that has lead, at least in part, to the radical Islam we see (today) spreading throughout the world.

Today, the Arab League also risk a backlash from their populations, but most leaders can see that with nuclear weapons, there is only a dark end in sight for the Middle East. My hope is that Israel finds common ground with the Arab League.

As far as our policies toward the ME go, the priority now is non proliferation of nukes. Nothing threatens that region, and the world more. The EU has negotiated with the Iranians for the last couple of years to no avail. The UN has also stepped up pressure. Respect for Iran is one thing, nuclear weapons are another.

I appreciate your post and point of view (albeit, slightly to the left of center).

Tom,

I can see your confusion. Don't worry, some day you'll reject the Bush philosophy (or lack thereof) and lessen your confusion.

As long as you look at the ME as run by fanatics and extremists you'll stay confused. It's a terrible false premise to start with.

Because a group (Arabs) want Israel gone doesn't make them extremists. Also, it doesn't make them fanatics. They have a legitimate argument. Just because the British and Americans annexed land for a Jewish State doesn't make it acceptable to the Muslim World. The Muslim world is under no obligation to support this idea in any way, shape or form. Certainly not because we tell them they have to. This doesn't make them a bunch of whacko's. Until you can accept this concept you'll remain confused.

That Israel and the Muslim world will come to blows again is a given. It's only a matter of time and the type of war that will ensue. Hoping the Arab States will embrace Israel is just that, hope. Israel is viewed as a cancer by the Muslim World and there will be no shortage of money and manpower in the years to come to attack Israel at every opportunity. Do I like this idea? Of course not. However, look at the history. Look at the last 60 years and look at where we are today. Nobody is going to wave a magic wand rid the world of the Muslims world feelings about Israel.

The point of my last post was 2 fold. First, to state what I just re-stated. Second, to state we (US) needs to seriously adjust our diplomatic efforts and rhetoric when it comes to the ME. War (like Iraq) is simply the failure of diplomacy. If we really want the ME to be as stable as possible we need to tone down our rhetoric and our actions against sovreign states. You will notice I said as stable as possible. I don't believe they will have any relative stablity for many, many years to come. This part of the world isn't about peace. It's about trying to not let it get out of hand. There is a huge difference.

Anyway, if you keep buying into the leaders of the ME countries being a bunch of fanatical whack jobs so the Bush Administration can sell it's fear mongering you'll stay confused. You might want to, just as an exercise, start with the premise these are very intelligent people who have an agenda and know exactly what they are doing.

BobL:

Two conclusions from your second to the last paragraph:

1. you are calling the Arabs (and Persians) religious fanatics and,

2. apply morphine to a dying patient (Israel) to ease the pain.

Is this an exercise in role reversal? You are absolutely right, I did over use the word fanatic so it dilutes the message, but, on the other hand, you couldn't have provided a better reason to take Ahmadinijad at his word.

Even I believe peace is possible, and remember I am the one that is nuts for suggesting that Iran is capable of placing a couple of nukes in Israel, regardless of the response from Israel, and you categorically deny the possibility; yet, without the possibility of peace, then extremism obviously wins.

Israel cannot be militarily defeated in a conventional war because they have nuclear weapons to counter that possibility, so how will they be defeated?

So I am really confused now....

Tom,

I agree Iran should not build a nuclear weapon. We simply have too many of them on the planet already with the US and Russia being the worst offenders and abusers of technology. Our arsenals are ridiculous over kill at best.

Obviously, there is more then one way to look at different cultures around the world. It's easy and simple to just label a different culture "fanatical". In your post to me you used this word several times in describing the Iranians, other ME countries, the Japanese and a couple of militant ME groups. When we (individually or governments) run around and insinuate someone or some country are a bunch of irrational nuts and evil we turn people off. They start to wonder what is wrong with us. Diplomacy doesn't come about by verbally mistreating people. It doesn't work in our private lives any more then it works for countries.

If we are really serious about Iran not developing a nuclear weapon we need to change our approach as to how we talk to them and deal with them. They are not expending the considerable money necessary to develop a nuke that will ultimately need to be secured and maintained which is also very expensive because they feel they have a lot of friends in the area. The US has troops on their border. The US is calling them evil and Bush is rattling the same irrational sabers he rattled in attacking Iraq. These are not the actions of a country interested in diplomacy.

Let's start with a basic premise. Every country on the face of this planet has right wing hard liners (fanatics). We have them in the United States, Britian has them and so do the ME countries. Case in point. You can't believe Pat Robertson's (a man of God?) calling for the murder of Chavez wasn't fanatical. It was. I'm sure the Arabs just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Another Christian leader abvocating murder and destruction. What else is new?" The same way we view a person from the ME stating Israelis should die and/or be destroyed. The only difference right now is there is a larger more vocal group of Arabs who want Israel gone.

The Israeli/Arab conflict is a religous conflict. It is the Crusades all over again for the Arabs only this time they're having to kick out the Jews and not the Christians. Exactly how many peace initatives have there been in the ME in the last 50 years? Why have they all fallen apart, failed or been rejected? What's a definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? The Arab/Israeli conflict will continue to fester until the Arabs can come together for the sole purpose of over running Israel and returning it to the Palestinians (if there are any left by then). It might take the Arabs 50 years to do this and it might take them 200 years to do this, but you can go to the bank on the fact they will continue down this path. Any other approach to this conflict is wishful thinking and folly. Even the Israelis know this and they act accordingly.

So, here we sit today with about 150K troops occupying Iraq. The region has been more destablized then it was and we don't have a good way out. If we just pull out the world will probably watch a massacre take place. Can we reverse the damage we've done? Probably not.
What we can do is change our view on foreign policy and start treating other countries with dignity and stop insulting them. We can pledge to never again recklessly invade a sovreign nation and work towards prolonging the inevitable war that will break out between Israel and the surrounding countries and hopefully limit it to a conventional war. This is by no means an optimal solution, but probably the best we can hope for. We're not going to turn the Arab world into a group of western christian democracies.

Does it really matter who is ruling Iran ?Well, it does.
Actually Irans political system is a complicated one, at least compare with the similar out of date countries in the region.
For instance ,in Iran we have a combination of elected and appointed entities.
Based on constitution of 1979 which the current system is still running on albeit with a major amendment in 1990(due to Khominies passing away)there are some elected and some appointed elements , which in it appointed elements have a huge influnce on elected bodies.(and here is the biggest source of disputes between reformists and conservatives).
in the current system Khameneie as a supreme leader enjoys a tremendous authority but his influence and power is limited compare with the previous supreme leader because actually unlike
Ruhollah khomeini he is an appointed person by The mighty Counsil of gaurdians while ayatollah khominei was a self-reliant valieh faqih and ofcourse he honored the tilte of bieng the founder of
Islamic Republic.

Supreme leader is the actual leader of the country in many aspects i.e he appoints the head of military forces cheifs and he is the commander in chief and can order both Artesh ( Army0 and Islamic Revolutianary Gaurds forces to engage into wars, while President hasn't such authorities .
In the domestic aspect president also is the second person after supreme leader who is the head of government and he chooses the ministers and he need majlis'(parliamnet)ratification.
Council of Gaurdians and The Expedincy Council are the other main bodies of the state .Council of Gaurdians which constitutionally is in charge of supervising on Majlis and any laws provided by it .This Council of Gaurdians again is another source of dispute because supreme leader has the authotrity to choose six clergy memeber of it(the other six will be introduced by Majlis )Thats what many of of reformist call it the vicious cycle of authoritarianism in political system of the state.While the Council of the Gaurdians is the main body which both monitors any move of Majlis in one side and supervise all state elections i.e. presidential and parliamentarian elections in the other,so you see so powerful body is this Council of Gaurdians.It not only has the right to supervise the elections it can also disqualify and candidate of presidency and parlaiment by its verdict.
The Expedieny Council which is another instrument in the current political arrangement is in fact a big name with no real power .So as
amny reformists contest in the cernel of the Current constitution we have a circle of people who actually don't need the public vote while they can decorate whatever around the cernel.

BobL

I am a huge admirer of the Japanese. That they were able to come back from such devastation is a real credit to their culture. They are, however, a testament to what fanaticism can do to leadership and it's people. In many ways, they remind me of Muslim fanatics, only the Japanese were even more fanatical, in my opinion.

First of all, the Arab league has put forth a peace initiative to Israel which I am certain that you are aware of. The initiative was first offered and rejected by Israel in 2002.

The initiative is, in my opinion, a fair proposal (at least a fair starting point), and done at the risk of alienating their populations. If peace is made, there will be a surge in terrorist recruitment, for sure. Saudi Arabia, which is an exporter of religious fanaticism, is at the forefront of the proposal. Most Arab governments, then, have accepted Israel (begrudgingly, to be sure) and so I don't necessarily agree with your point regarding all Arabs. In fact, it seems to me, it is a courageous attempt at peace.

Iran and Syria are actively supporting terrorist activities against Israel through their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas and are not a part of the peace initiative.

Below are some interesting exerts taken from different articles.

New York times, April 14, 2007:

“…But many diplomats and analysts say that the Sunni Arab governments are so anxious about Iran’s nuclear progress that they would even, grudgingly, support a United States military strike against Iran.

“If push comes to shove, if the choice is between an Iranian nuclear bomb and a U.S. military strike, then the Arab gulf states have no choice but to quietly support the U.S.,” said Christian Koch, director of international studies at the Gulf Research Center, a private group in Dubai…”

Emily B. Landau is senior research associate and director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project at the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University (below):

"...One way of attempting to confront the direct security threat of a nuclear Iran is for these states to enhance their own military capabilities. In the conventional realm, Gulf states have in recent months been uncharacteristically vocal about their arms acquisitions and the need to create a military deterrent against Iran. Deterrence could also be bolstered by parallel nuclear capabilities. In fact, reports over the past six months have identified quite a few states in the Middle East - including Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf Cooperation Council states as a group - that have made known their intention to develop a civilian nuclear program. Not surprisingly, these reports have sparked concern that the true aim behind these programs is a nuclear weapons capability reflecting fears linked directly to Iran..."

From unknown source (supporting what you say in your last post):

"...Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said..."

From Washington Times, December 12, 2006

"...While historically hostile to any step that could lead to an "Islamic" nuclear bomb, Israelis are weighing that risk against the possibility of an implicit alliance with neighboring Sunni Arab states that share their concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Shi'ite Iran.
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Sunni-Shi'ite fighting in Iraq is already spilling over into the region, with elements in Saudi Arabia and Iran offering financial and other backing to competing Iraqi factions.
Leaders of six Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, ordered a feasibility study of a joint atomic energy program Sunday at the conclusion of a two-day summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Riyadh.
The oil-rich countries, all predominantly Sunni Arab states, made it clear that their declaration was intended to prod the West into stopping Shi'ite Iran from gaining nuclear weapons..."

Are you kidding me? The Arab states SUPPORTING American strikes against Iran? That should be a real clue to how dangerous everyone in the Middle East views the Iranians (with the exception of Syria). It is more evidence to support the contention that the Iranians are fanatical and a threat to every country in the Middle East, let alone Israel.

I do not envision Iran building their first nuclear bomb, putting it in a volkswagon bus, hiring four hippies to shuttle it to Israel and detonating it. The Iranians are far from stupid, but that has nothing to do with religious fanaticism. They will build their nuclear arsenal and in return, proliferation in the Middle East will result (as suggested in the articles above). In addition, the US will arm Israel with a sizable nuclear arsenal.

Iran with nuclear weapons and a fanatical theocratic leadership, and Israel which has asserted her right to a preemptive strike (under international law) for defensive purposes, in my opinion, is an explosive situation. In addition, Iran through her proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, are nearly in a daily potential conflict with Israel. A nuclear confrontation would seem very likely.

After reading about Arab reactions to Iran's nuclear weapons program over the past few months (and provided that the NYT's article is factually correct), we probably will not have to worry about Iran's nuclear program. One way or another, I suspect the program will be halted. You may think I'm nuts (again), but it is a program that needs to be halted (one way or another).

AM

I am not real fond of the "no moral authority argument" because it focuses the discussion on the US instead of on Iran.

It doesn't really matter if the quotes are translated with a different meaning since the Iranians have let these interpretations stand, i.e., Mike Wallace's interview.

As far as sanctions go, you certainly could be right, but that probably will make the US decision to bomb Iran that much easier (with great repercussions world-wide) since Iran has rejected the sanctions.

Do you support Iran having nuclear weapons, and if you do, would you view that as a way to pressure Israel to the peace table?

You said you were from the Sudan awhile back. Are you of African or Arab (or other) descent (if I may ask)? You really don't discuss the situation in Sudan much, but I would guess you have some strong opinions on the subject. Note that Olmert is going to attend an Arab meeting. That is a positive step.

Thanks for the post.

Tom,

I just watched the Discovery Channels, "Hiroshima" last night. Good docudrama. What we let loose on Hiroshima and Nagaski were fire crackers compared to what we have today. One of the survivors was only 300 yards from ground zero and survived because she was cleaning a bank and it was built to be earth quake proof. Just an interesting fact. Oh, by the way the subtitle was, "The world's first weapon of mass destruction."

Let's see if we can find some common ground here. I agree the Iranians hate the State of Israel. Hate them with a passion. I also have stated every other Muslim country including Pakistan hates them as well. I have no doubt if you only glance at Muslim quotes concerning Israel they will characterize the State as illegal, immoral and a blight on the ME. A cancer that will someday be eradicated. Does that pretty much sum up how the Arab world feels about Israel? I have no doubt they want Israel gone from the ME. Can we agree on this?

Can we also agree that Israel has somewhere between 20 and 40 nukes in their arsenal?

Can we agree the US has over 5,000 nukes with unquestionably the best delivery systems money can buy?

Can we agree that the Arab world knows this as well? After all, if we agree on these facts they are public information. Let us assume a simple fact that the leaders of all Arab countries are capable of reading so they must be aware of these facts.

Assuming the above facts are basically true it is a quantum leap to assume Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it had one. Rhetoric is rhetoric. They can spout off about how much they want Israel gone, but using a nuke against a country that has 20 to 40 of them is something entirely different then populous rhetoric. It would be more then fair to state if Iran blew off a nuke in anger against Israel or the US within minutes there wouldn't be a single Iranian alive in Iran. Retribution would be swift and complete. What you are basically asking people to believe is these Bush anointed axis of evil states are so stupid they don't understand the basics of power. I reject this idea completely.

I've made no secret about the fact I think Bush/Cheney are terrible leaders. I don't think this nation has ever had worse leaders. However, I don't even believe Dumb and Dumber would shoot off a nuke and I believe they are the worst this planet has to offer when it comes to leaders. Hence, if I don't believe Bish will use a nuke I sure don't believe any ME leader would either with the possible exception of Israel.

PS: It wasn't Dumb and Dumber that gave me the right to criticize them. The constitution did this for the purpose of being able to hold our leaders accountable. This is one of the few rights Americans have Bush couldn't change with the Patriot Act or with a signing statement.

Tom Wonacott @ April 14, 2007 10:06 AM:

You posted many quotes from Ahmadinedjad. Assuming that they are correct: Obviously he does not like Israel. I see no threat to the US. All that the quotes amount to is that he believes that without unconditional US support, Israel's neighbors will destroy Israel. Again, I see no reason for the US to attack Iran.

As for the UN sanctions on Iran, that seems to be at our insistence, with the rest of the Security Council giving us a bone so we don't go off half-cocked, again, as we did with Iraq.

I also would not raise the incident with the British sailors a couple of weeks ago. Britain and the US invaded a country and have been in violation of every civil principle for 4 years now. The incident pales in comparison; and I must add the Iranians treated their prisoners far more humanely and civilized that we have treated ours.

The upshot is that I see Iran as just another country pursuing its interests. Some of the nuts we have in the US government do not like that, but I prefer to see them grow up, and to stop having a temper tantrum whenver they cannot get the cookie they want when they ask for it. It is they who make us the primary threat to peace right now.

To Tom Wonacott

Tom, these compact bombs can be only made of plutonium. Iranians are developing the uranium program, which is cheaper, but needs more material (50 kg per bomb minimum, not taking into account all the other stuff).

Concerning proliferation - it's just what I'm speaking about: we should prevent countries from receiving WMD, not punish them somehow when they already have such weapons.

To Alexander Vysotsky:

Terrorist organizations are very patient. In addition to the suitcase nukes listed below, "dirty bombs" also could be quite effective for destruction and radiation affects. Technology will only improve on what we already have.

"...Only a nation with an extremely advanced nuclear program could manufacture warheads small enough to fit into a suitcase. Both the United States and the Soviet Union manufactured nuclear weapons small enough to fit into large backpacks during the Cold War, but neither have ever made public the existence or development of weapons small enough to fit into a suitcase. The smallest nuclear warhead manufactured by the USA was the W54, used for the Davy Crockett warhead which could be fired from a 120 mm recoilless rifle, and a backpack version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). While this warhead, with a weight of only 51 lb (23 kg), could potentially fit into a large suitcase, it would be a very tight fit. While the explosive power of the W54 — up to an equivalent of 1 kiloton of TNT — is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 13 to 15 kilotons each)..."

Israel would definitely answer a nuclear attack, but a US nuclear response (on Israel's behalf) would be unlikely. The US will make sure that Israel has enough firepower to destroy the entire Middle East though. That will be the first order of business if Iran manufactures nuclear bombs.

I agree that nuclear weapons are a tremendous deterrent to war, but by that logic, then nuclear proliferation will lead to a perfectly peaceful planet, and I doubt many people would be willing to risk that scenario.

In fact, we have here two different approaches to what is going on in Iranian nuclear program.

Well, there is no doubt that they are developing the bomb project - it's evident, and it lasts for 10 years at least.

The discord lies in a field of 1) what are they going to do with the bomb and 2) what we should do to prevent them from receiving such a weapon?

I think, the answers should be divided. First - Iranian bomb is a threat to...? Israel – I don’t really think so. Even supplying some abstract terrorists with such weapons seems questionable - nuclear bomb is not a hand grenade, and missiles that are used for example by Hezbollah are not capable to carry anything of the kind. Iran has heavy missiles, but it'll never use it because of predicted military answer of Israel & US.

So, Iranian future bomb will have one definite consequence - fast proliferation in the Gulf region. And, possibly, the other will be the "cold peace" in the region, including Israel. It has many disadvantages, but at least, will guarantee us from bloody wars - only local conflicts, mainly in Palestine and, may be, Lebanon.

The second point is "what we should do to prevent them from receiving nuclear weapons?".

Essentially, "diplomatic way" is a way of severe measures from the SC, like it was in the North Korea. But this way has one main disadvantage - it'll be realized only AFTER they receive a bomb, not BEFORE. It's natural - Iran (officially) is a member of IAAE and of Non-proliferation Treaty (it's funny, but North Korea is also a part of this Treaty even now), so, until they say "here is our bomb", nothing may be done.

That is why diplomatic way can't be considered ideal - in fact, there are no ideal variants - but there is a variant of a local strike - it may throw the nuclear program away for nearly a decade. And will help the fundamentalists to remain in power for some more time.

BobL (and it probably answers AM as well):

Quotes by Ahmadinijad:

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."

"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."

"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."

Of course, Bob, none of these quotes rises to the level of “axis of evil”. Now, you can walk right up to the Secret Service and call President Bush evil, and that is your right as an American, but try telling them that you plan to annihilate him. Maybe this kind of rhetoric is common for the President of a country, so maybe you can cite other Presidents that have threatened another country in the same manner on so many occasions. So I believe I interpreted your statement correctly. Iran's leadership are whack jobs.

But don't listen to me, Bob. Its the UN that has imposed sanctions on Iran, and why do you suppose that is? Maybe it has something to do with the history of this regime. Only last month, they committed an illegal act of war against Britain. Maybe it has something to do with a clandestine nuclear program, and violations of the NNT treaty that Iran, itself, has signed.

"...I agree Iran is a threat to Israel. As are all of the other ME countries in one way or another. That is Israels problem and not ours..."

That is exactly where we disagree. When nuclear weapons are involved, it is the world's problem, Bob. Proliferation is the world's problem. Every Middle East country armed to the teeth with nukes is the world's problem. Terrorist organizations with nuclear material or weapons is the world's problem.

Why do you think that China stepped in so quickly after North Korea (an evil regime if there ever was one) set off a nuclear bomb? Because China in no way wants a nuclear arms race in Asia, that's why, and the Middle East is, at least, ten orders of magnitude more dangerous.

It is exactly the role of the UN to mediate when problems like this arise. The UN has provided a solution which is an offer of nuclear power without uranium enrichment. The Iranians have turned the offer down, so far.

"...The world would not stand for a nuke used against anyone today and would dismantle any country who was responsible for the use of one..."

Its too late by then (and by world, I assume you mean the US).

So, it is completely irrelevant to the Iranian issue what the US did in 1945, but if that still bothers you, then I suggest that you write Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and suggest that sanctions be imposed on t