WarSclerotic

Give Iran the Bomb? A Very, Very Bad Idea | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com.

Nuclear explosion. Photo: wiki commons.

Worried about a nuclear Iran? Do you think such a development would not only threaten Israel’s very existence but would intimidate the Arab countries of the Gulf, put the radical Islamist regime in position to threaten the West, and lead to unmanageable nuclear proliferation?

Have no fear. Along comes Kenneth N. Waltz, the highly respected professor of international relations at Columbia University, who argues in a feature-length article in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that not only is there nothing to worry about, but in fact, “Iran Should Get the Bomb.”

While Waltz takes a highly unusual approach to the issue by actually arguing that an Iranian bomb would stabilize the Middle East, he knows (and maybe Foreign Affairs knows) he is planting his ideas on somewhat fertile soil. There are significant players around the world who are unhappy with the international efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Those players use some, if not all the arguments that Waltz brings to bear.

The opposition to action against Iran operates on different levels.

It starts with a kind of panic about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Indeed, the single largest reason why after more than a decade of inaction the international community in the last year-and-a-half has mounted serious sanctions is because of the fear of an imminent Israeli attack. You don’t have to do it, says the world, because we are imposing sanctions and pursuing a diplomatic solution.

In other words, even the positive steps taken to pressure Iran come out of a negative.

Other arguments come into play which are not merely intended to prevent Israeli military action, but which question the wisdom of any kind of a campaign to stop Iran. One argument is that Iran is a completely rational player and therefore the policies of containment that worked between the Soviet Union and the United States during the cold war can now work between Iran and Israel.

Of course, Iran is not the Soviet Union. However evil the Soviet Union, they were not crazy. In the case of Iran, as one Israeli expert put it, there is a high degree of rationality in their policy-making. But there is enough of an element of irrationality and apocalyptic thinking that makes it impossible for Israel to live with a nuclear Iran under such uncertainty.

Others argue that as long as Israel has a nuclear arsenal, the world has no right to deprive Iran from doing the same. Under the rubric of a nuclear-free Middle East, a noble goal, efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear are seen as one-sided and unfair.

Waltz has now brought these various arguments together in one piece and extended them further. It is as if he worries that at this point, any international efforts against Iran will end up leading to the military option rather than prevent it. And therefore he feels the need to say that all such efforts are invalid because Iran’s getting a bomb will be a good thing.

Waltz stretches reality to the breaking point to reach his conclusion, so, it is reasonable to assume he falls into the category that says: there is nothing worse than an Israeli military attack, and that includes allowing Iran to have a bomb.

Waltz is particularly out of touch in two of his claims: that Iran’s having a bomb will bring more stability to the region, and it will not lead to nuclear proliferation in the region.

Just ask the Arab states whether they agree with these conclusions. The U.S. diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks made clear that the Gulf States are just as concerned about an Iranian bomb as is Israel.

They see an Iran with a bomb as a nation that will try to intimidate its neighbors, make greater claims over disputed territories and try to promote Shia interests over Sunni — in other words, a major force for instability.

And what will they do about it? Inevitably, some will seek their own nuclear capacity to offset Iran.

Waltz argues that proliferation will not happen because it did not happen for decades when the Arabs learned their enemy — Israel — had its own weapons.

In fact, the example of Israel proves the opposite point. In the case of Israel, the Arabs did not see a need to build their own bombs because they knew, despite their rhetoric, that Israel was no threat to them.

In the case of Iran there is true anxiety in the Arab world and the likelihood of proliferation is very high indeed.

In sum, Iran is and should be seen as a threat by Israel, by the Arabs, by the Western world.

Waltz’s piece is a last-ditch and fairly pathetic effort to argue against international moves to stop an Iranian bomb. It is absurd on its face.

But because of where it was published and by whom, and because there are many in the elites who share at least some of his thinking, we probably haven’t heard the last of this.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

After an Israeli Strike on Iran – Daniel Pipes – National Review Online.

The consequences wouldn’t be cataclysmic.

By Daniel Pipes

How would Iranians respond to an Israeli strike against their nuclear infrastructure? The answers given to this question matter greatly, as predictions about Iran’s response will affect not only Jerusalem’s decision, but also how much other states will work to impede an Israeli strike.

Analysts generally offer best-case predictions for policies of deterrence and containment (some commentators even go so far as to welcome an Iranian nuclear capability) while forecasting worst-case results from a strike. They foresee Tehran doing everything possible to retaliate, such as kidnapping, terrorism, missile attacks, naval combat, and closing the Strait of Hormuz. These predictions ignore two facts: Neither of Israel’s prior strikes against enemy states building nuclear weapons — Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007 — prompted retaliation; and a review of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s history since 1979 points to, in the words of Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights, “a more measured and less apocalyptic — if still sobering — assessment of the likely aftermath of a preventive strike.”

Eisenstadt and Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in “Beyond Worst-Case Analysis: Iran’s Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike.” Their survey of Iranian behavior over the past three decades leads them to anticipate that three main principles would likely shape and limit Tehran’s response to an Israeli strike: an insistence on reciprocity, a caution not to gratuitously make enemies, and a wish to deter further Israeli (or American) strikes.

The mullahs, in other words, face serious limits on their ability to retaliate, including military weakness and a pressing need not to make yet more external enemies. With these guidelines in place, Eisenstadt and Knights consider eight possible Iranian responses, which must be assessed while keeping in mind the alternative to preemptive action — namely, apocalyptic Islamists controlling nuclear weapons:

1. Terrorist attacks on Israeli, Jewish, and U.S. targets. Likely, but causing limited destruction.

2. Kidnapping of U.S. citizens, especially in Iraq. Likely, but limited in impact, as in the 1980s in Lebanon.

3. Attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very likely, especially via proxies, but causing limited destruction.

4. Missile strikes on Israel. Likely: a few missiles from Iran getting through Israeli defenses, leading to casualties likely in the low hundreds; missiles from Hezbollah limited in number due to domestic Lebanese considerations. Unlikely: Hamas getting involved, having distanced itself from Tehran; the Syrian government interfering, since it is battling for its life against an ever-stronger opposition army and possibly the Turkish armed forces. Overall, missile attacks are unlikely to do devastating damage.

5. Attacks on neighboring states. Likely: especially using terrorist proxies, for the sake of deniability. Unlikely: missile strikes, for Tehran does not want to make more enemies.

6. Clashes with the U.S. Navy. Likely, but, given the balance of power, doing limited damage.

7. Covertly mining the Strait of Hormuz. Likely, causing a run-up in energy prices.

8. Attempted closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Unlikely: difficult to achieve and potentially too damaging to Iranian interests, because the country needs the strait for commerce.

The authors also consider three potential side effects of an Israeli strike. Yes, Iranians might rally to their government in the immediate aftermath of a strike, but in the longer term Tehran “could be criticized for handling the nuclear dossier in a way that led to military confrontation.” The so-called Arab street is perpetually predicted to rise up in response to outside military attack, but it never does; it’s likely that unrest among the Shiite Muslims of the Persian Gulf would be counterbalanced by the many Arabs quietly cheering the Israelis. As for Iran leaving the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and starting an overt, crash nuclear-weapons program, while “a very real possibility,” the more the Iranians retaliated against a strike, the harder they would find it to obtain the parts for such a program.

In all, these dangers are unpleasant but not cataclysmic, manageable not devastating. Eisenstadt and Knights expect a short phase of high-intensity Iranian response, to be followed by a “protracted low-intensity conflict that could last for months or even years” — much as already exists between Iran and Israel. An Israeli preventive strike, they conclude, while a “high-risk endeavor carrying a potential for escalation in the Levant or the Gulf . . . would not be the apocalyptic event some foresee.”

This analysis makes a convincing case that the danger of nuclear weapons falling into Iranian hands far exceeds the danger of a military strike to prevent this from happening.

— Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Putin: Don’t rush to strike Iran – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Warning from Putin: Visiting Russian president cautions Israel against hasty military action in Iran, says ‘look at what happened to the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan’

Attila Somfalvi

President Vladimir Putin expressed his reservations over the prospect of a military strike in Iran, urging Israel Monday to learn from negative US experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Putin’s comments were made in a meeting with Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, after Israel’s president asked the visiting leader to speak out on the Iran issue.

Related stories:

• Putin in Israel, inaugurates WWII memorial 
• Russia looks to Israel for water technology

“Look at what happened to the Americans in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I told Obama the same thing,” the visiting president said in a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, cautioning against hasty military action. “There is no need to do things too quickly; one should not act without thinking first.”

“Iraq has a pro-Iranian regime after everything that has happened there. These things should be thought out ahead of time before doing something one will regret later,” he said. “One should not act prematurely.”

‘Russia wants peace for Israel’

Earlier in the evening, Putin said that his country “has a national interest in guaranteeing peace and tranquility for Israel.”

The Russian president noted that the former Soviet Union supported the State of Israel’s establishment, adding that his talks earlier Monday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were constructive and pertained to the need to boost strategic ties between the two countries.

Friendly visit (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

Speaking at a state dinner held for his Russian counterpart, Peres expressed his hope that Putin would contribute to the achievement of peace in the region, making note of his “warm attitude” towards the Jewish state.

Peres added that “the Iranian people are not our enemy. Israel does threaten their existence. It is Iran’s current regime that indentifies itself as an enemy of Israel and a threat to its existence.”

BIbi: Israel, Russia agree on Iran

Israel and Russia agree that Iranian nuclear weapons would constitute grave danger for the Jewish state and for the whole world, PM Netanyahu said earlier Monday following his meeting with Putin.

“I believe that we should be doing two things now: Boosting the sanctions (on Iran) and also boosting the demands,” Netanyahu said.

Putin and Netanyahu (Photo: Marc Israel Sellem)

The Russian president said the two leaders “spoke in detail about the Syria issue and about the Iranian nuclear program.”

“I would like to stress again that the negotiations were detailed and very effective,” he said. “I’m convinced that the cooperation between Russia and Israel will develop later as well, and this matter certainly meets the demands and interests of both states, in the region and in the world at large.”

‘Friendly ties’

Speaking to the media after meeting PM Netanyahu, Putin thanked Israel’s leadership for inviting him to visit.

“My visit here reinforced the assumption that we have friendly relations, and these are not just friendly relations,” Putin said. “This is a solid basis for building dialogue and partnership.”

Putin greeted by PM’s wife (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom, GPO)

Earlier Monday, President Peres greeted Putin in a dedication ceremony for a memorial to the Red Army’s victory over Nazi Germany in Netanya. Peres said he is certain that Russia, which fought fascism, will not tolerate similar threats, “not an Iranian threat and not bloodshed in Syria.”

Signal to Egypt

During Monday’s press conference, Netanyahu also addressed regional realities, referring to the Islamist victory in Egypt’s presidential elections.

The PM said that Israel “appreciates the democratic process in Egypt” and respects the Egyptian election results.

“We look forward to working together with the new administration on the basis of the peace agreement between us,” Netanyahu said. “I believe peace is important for Israel. I believe peace is important for Egypt.”

Meanwhile, President Putin addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that “against the backdrop of events in the Middle East, it is important to resolve longtime conflicts.”

“We urge all sides to renew negotiations; this is the only way to resolve the problem,” the Russian president said.

Putin told Israel he is not obligated to Syria’s Assad, senior officials say – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Russia has to date expressed support for the Assad regime, despite the bloodbath the regime is conducting against his citizens.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, left, with President Peres at the Red Army Memorial in Netanya on Monday. Photo by Reuters

Russian President Vladimir Putin told senior Israeli officials on Monday that while he was not obligated to Syrian President Bashar Assad, he urged the West to think carefully before trying to remove him, a senior Israeli diplomatic sources said on Monday.

“We asked Putin for Russia to work more actively to preserve stability in Syria, to prevent biological and chemical weapons from falling into the hands of Hezbollah or other terror groups,” the source said. “Putin said that he is not obligated to Assad, but that Russia and Syria have strategic relations.”

Russia has to date expressed support for the Assad regime, despite the bloodbath the regime is conducting against his citizens.

During his meeting with President Shimon Peres, Putin discussed the possibility that a Western state would act to bring down the Assad regime in Syria.

“From my experience, one must think about the consequences of an act before doing it,” Putin was quoted as saying. “Look what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. With regard to Syria, one must think carefully whether the opposition that will rise to power will be what the West wants it to be, or whether it will end up being totally the opposite.”

Peres reportedly presented Putin with a proposal to put Syria under the control of the Arab League and the United Nations for two years, until democratic elections could be held there.

“Assad stopped being an alternative when he started firing at his children,” Peres said. “None of us can tolerate coffins filled with the bodies of children. That’s beyond politics.”

With regard to Iran, the senior diplomatic source said Jerusalem had “asked Russia to be more passive and continue to honor the UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. We asked that Russia maintain a united front with the West, and not demonstrate relative moderation toward Iran.”

All told, Israeli officials were satisfied by the talks with Putin, saying the sense was that common ground could be reached on the Iranian nuclear issue.

“There was a feeling that Putin and [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu found a common language,” a diplomatic source said. “There was an open conversation between the two on the Iranian issue. Putin gave us the feeling that there’s what to talk about, and not that each side was coming just to clarify its stance.”

While there didn’t seem to have been any agreements reached on Iran’s nuclear program or Russia’s support for the Assad regime, “If there had been a substantive disagreement during the talks, neither side would have concealed it,” said a source familiar with the content of the talks.

“During the meeting there were in-depth, detailed talks on the Iranian issue. Netanyahu and Putin agreed that the discourse between them should continue via an open and continuous line. During the meeting there was also a mechanism created for the two sides’ teams to advance the discussions on the issue.”

Earlier, during the reception ceremony for Putin at the President’s Residence, which included an Israel Defense Forces honor guard, Peres said he was confident Russia would aid in the effort to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“I know Russia rejects Iranian development of weapons of mass destruction,” said Peres. “It’s important that this effect not let up. Nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are a threat to the security and stability of Iran’s neighbors, and essentially the entire world.

“Iran has made explicit threats against the State of Israel,” Peres added. “We cannot accept nuclear weapons being in the hands of those who threaten to destroy us.”

Putin responded by saying: “The region in which Israel sits greatly influences the feelings of the entire international community. Russia has a national interest in assuring peace and tranquillity for Israel.”

Putin to Israel: Iran won’t get a nuclear bomb. No need for an Israeli strike.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 25, 2012, 10:06 PM (GMT+02:00)

Vladimir Putin in Jerusalem

The high point of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s noteworthy 90-minute talk with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem Monday, June 25, was Putin’s firm assertion that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. This is disclosed exclusively by debkafile’s Jerusalem and Moscow sources.
He also dismissed reports that the third round in Moscow of six-power talks with Iran (June 18-19) led nowhere, stressing they were serious and substantial. The next round taking place in Istanbul on July for technical discussions is, according to the Russian president, of prime importance. For the first time, he explained, the nuclear negotiations with Iran will get down to the core issues and would therefore of greater significance  than the “Ashton-Jalili” sessions.
(He was referring to European foreign executive Catherine Ashton who chairs the negotiations and Saeed Jalili, senior Iranian negotiator.)
Putin corrected the general impression that Russia has confined itself to the role of passive bystander in the bargaining with Iran: Quite the reverse, he said: Moscow has been proactively working for accord behind the scenes and its “input” to the process “is considerable.”
Although the word “intelligence” was not mentioned, it was clearly intimated by the Russian visitor when he said, “We [Russians] know more about what is going on with regard to Iran’s (nuclear) capabilities than the Americans.”
It was Putin’s way to scoff at Israel for investing so much time and strategic assets in endless wrangling over how to handle the Iranian threat with American security, military and intelligence chiefs, when the Netanyahu government would be better served by sparing a fraction of that time for talking to Moscow.

In conclusion, he stressed to Netanyahu that it was unnecessary for Israel to use military force against Iran’s nuclear program. Israel knows exactly how much Russia has done to prevent Iran building a nuclear weapon,” he said. “A nuclear weapon in Iranian hands would be contrary to Russian interests, and so it will not get one,”  he stressed.
More exclusive details of the Putin-Netanyahu conversation will be disclosed in the coming issue of DEBKA-Net-Weekly out next Friday.