Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Killing the Samson Option

You would almost think the Iranian Presidential nutter has read a US Army War College report (which suggests that the only effective determent to a nuclear armed Iran would begin with the nuclear disarmament of Israel) since he has the talking points memo down (taken from a Ynet News article):
Iranian government spokesperson Gholam-Hossein Elham told a press conference Tuesday that “the dismantling of nuclear arms in the Middle East must begin with the Zionist entity.” The spokesperson added that Iran was ‘ideologically opposed’ to the use of nuclear arms.
But the Iranian Presidential nutter is not the only one with the talking points memo down:

However, North Korea’s nuclear test has prompted Iran to call on the International Atomic Energy Agency to brace itself for the possibility that all countries would seek nuclear energy for “peaceful purposes.” Elham said the ban to use weapons of mass destruction should be imposed globally. “A just balance would remove these (nuclear) threats, and the conquering regime from Jerusalem should be the first in the region to disarm,” he said.

Turning his attention to the North Korean nuclear test, the spokesperson said, “Iran is opposed to any use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. He added that Muslim and other countries would support the superpowers should they decide to disarm.“No one will benefit from the use of nuclear weapons,” he said.


Asked whether the North Korean test would be advantageous to Iran Elham said, “The root of the issue lies in the behavior and mindset of the leaders in the United States and the rest of the superpowers. Unfortunately, they are those who control the Security Council; they possess the arsenals and are taking advantage of the Council to promote their own objectives.”

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Majlis (Iranian parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, told the Iranian News Agency Monday that “the only solution which can put an end to nuclear tests is collective determination of the global community to eradicate proliferation of nuclear weapons.”

“The US should stop its double-standard policy in the world; it is the only country that has resorted to the use of nuclear bombs to massacre innocent civilians and is continuing its current policy in contradiction of Article Six of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said.

Boroujerdi added: “If countries like Pakistan, India, North Korea and the Zionist regime kept up their nuclear tests, it is because of their non-compliance with international rules and regulations along with their non-membership of NPT.” “The West should encourage and cooperate with countries, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, which abide by NPT protocol and conduct their activities under the supervision of IAEA in line with international rules and regulations,” he said.



I love this double standard concept which implies that the Iranian, Syrian, Saudi or even Egyptian state are on the same level playing field as the Israelis. The truth is, until the Israelis stone women and gays for their alleged moral transgressions, or the state overlooks honour killings, denies universal suffrage for women and/or minorities, dismantles the free press and the electoral system, resorts to public dismemberments/executions for criminal behaviour or promotes forced indentured servitude, it is safe to conclude that these states are not the even close to being the equal to the Israeli state.

Furthermore, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it has a nuclear weapons program and has preferred to keep any speculation merely in the shadows. No doubt this keeps the neighbors on the edge of their seats and guessing, but after two thousand years of persecution, it is long past the time to admit the truth of what happens when Jews lay down their arms.

But ask yourself this; has the world community of nations given the Jews any valid reasons to believe that societies and communities have changed so radically or substantially that a slaughter would not result if the Jews laid down their arms today?

3 comments:

Michael said...

The answer to your last question, of course, is a resounding, "No."

Here is the Hezbollah spokesman Hassan Ezzedin, on his organization's goals, from a recent New Yorker Magazine interview:

. "Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine," he [said], referring to the year of Israel's founding. The Jews who survive this war of liberation, Ezzeddin said, "can go back to Germany, or wherever they came from." He added, however, that the Jews who lived in Palestine before 1948 will be "allowed to live as a minority and they will be cared for by the Muslim majority."

You have just described why both N Korea and Iran need to have their capitals firebombed with absolutely everything in the conventional arsenal. Neither country can make an effective response to such an attack, and both countries have made it abundantly clear that that is the only language they understand.

As for Israel and nukes, well, Israel is the only member of the nuclear club that has not paraded, or used, it's weaponry. Israel is the only country to understand that uncertainty can also equal deterrence.

K. Shoshana said...

I was quite surprised that there was no US offensive launched against Syria in the spring of 2005. It made me realize how shallow the Bush Administration was in regards to the WOT, in spite of the high fluting rhetoric.

Furthermore, don't expect any US military offensive against Iran. If they are able to watch Iraq go down the tubes by not taking concrete action against Syria, then everyone and everything is expendable.

If anything, I would suggest that the US will cave into some kind of nuclear appeasement policy towards Iran - probably brokered and offered by the Russians in the near future - anything to avoid direct military intervention.

Frankly, I don't see a nuclear armed Iran using its nukes directly against the Israeli state but supplying its proxies with the weapons to do the dirty deed. The Iranians are superbly good at plausal deniability scenarios - no doubt all the Russian tutoring is paying off.

Once the Americans cave into appeasement on the Iranians, I do not think it out of the realm of possibilities that the Americans will soon decide that an alliance with Israel is just not worth the cost. It will be sugar-coated to the American public - but then again, there is a substantial portion of the American public who already feel Israel is not worth the cost of maintaining the alliance.

My point being, that the state of Israel needs to realize that it truly is alone in the world and govern herself accordingly - from both a military and economic standpoint. Total self-reliance and self-sufficency should be the goal. Otherwise, in the coming months it will be offered up as the sacrifical lamb to American geopolitic interests.

Chris Taylor said...

Dr. Michael Ignatieff (yes, that one) made much the same point in a lecture at Holy Blossom a couple of years ago. He said that at some point, the cost/benefit calculation of the US-Israel security alliance might shift against Israel, and that the US might be forced by its own strategic interests (namely, protecting US citizens) to hang Israel out to dry.

I didn't buy it then, but looking at some of the rhetoric coming from certain quarters, that prediction is a lot more credible now.