Comments on: Netanyahu, strongest prime minister since David Ben-Gurion

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:25:59 +0000

Forced regime change in Iran is not possible because at least two major powers that can stop such a move are in opposition: China and Russia. On top of that, Pakistan seems to have better relations with Iran than with USA (however it may surprise many Americans, drone attacks on pakistan soil are not popular, to put it mildly. India is not supportive either. In another spot on the globe, like Libya, that would not make that much of a difference.

Importantly, the internal situation in Iran is quite stable. Israeli attack would either be directed narrowly at the nuclear program that has no military and strategic importance, or on other sites, leading to much more wrathful retribution.

US and NATO forces in Afghanistan can be placed in a desperate siege, cut-off from military supplies other than by airlift, and short of fuel, while the insurgency can get generous supply of missiles that can be directed at vehicles, drones, helicopters and planes on the ground. Also, Hindukush mountains in the center of Afghanistan are home to a Persian speaking Shia population, there is no insurrection thee now, and would one start, Afghanistan controlled by the government and NATO forces would become a necklace of disjoint islands with little communication from one to another.

A larger destruction in Iran may lead to the closure of Hormuz.

A larger American attack on Iran may lead to Russian veto, military aid and nuclear threat (as a form of veto on American attacks, Diego Garcia is a dream of a threat target: no civilians and important!).

I admit that there is a lot of speculation here, but the bottom line is that Israeli attack on Iran has practically no upside and the downside of the size of Mariana Trench.

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Sun, 13 May 2012 20:16:53 +0000

Rowan, your presumption that the MB is aligned with the Saudis is just ignorant. The Saudis have no control over the MB, while the MB deeply despises the Saudi ruling family.

By: Rowan Berkeley

Rowan Berkeley — Sat, 12 May 2012 13:16:55 +0000

Damian, what I meant about ‘international theatre’ was specifically the idea that Israel could launch a unilateral attack on Iran and drag the US into it against the latter’s will. I agree with you that if Israel appears to be doing this, it is because that appearance is useful to the US. But as long as Obama and the Democrats are in power, they have good party-political reasons to tacitly encourage an Israeli attack, while publicly arguing against it, then, if and when it happens, turn round and vilify the Republicans, Neocons and the Likudniks for it.

I suspect that there is a secret deal between Israel and the Sauds, to divide up the region. Otherwise, Israel would be far more alarmed by the region-wide ascendancy of MB-type forces than it is. The fact that the Arab world was divided into quarreling statelets was very much to Israel’s advantage. If it is unified under indirect Saudi control, then unless there is such a secret Saudi deal with Israel, the Sauds would have to be regarded by Israel as deadly enemies, much more dangerous than Iran is.

By: Mikesailor

Mikesailor — Fri, 11 May 2012 14:32:54 +0000

Iran is merely a sideshow for the Israeli government, it keeps the Israeli public distracted from the real game. Look at the reaction of the government to the impending crisis with the Supreme Court orders concerning Ulpana and Migron to find the real reason for this so-called ‘unity’ government. Will the government ‘pull the fangs’ of the right-wing and the ‘settlers’, or will they appease them once again? That is the crisis, everything else is merely obfuscation.

By: max

max — Fri, 11 May 2012 08:55:40 +0000

@SH, you’re right, of course, I assumed too much.
Specifically, I assumed that your comment back was referring to what I wrote, not a diversion with neither facts nor any reference to the issue I raised.
In short, I now _know_ that your position is based on preconception, not any examination of events in the context of democracy.
.
I think that the real danger to democracy in Israel is the left’s failure to get beyond criticism and come up with a credible solution, leaving it a negligible political entity and forcing it to come up with provocations to prove it’s still alive

By: Damian Lataan

Damian Lataan — Thu, 10 May 2012 23:09:55 +0000

Hi Rowan Berkeley,
You’re quite right about the neoconservatives and the Republicans being at the forefront of the push for an attack against Iran. And, of course, one should not forget the Israel lobby in the US and around the world that also back an attack against Iran.
War is a very serious business and world leaders do not talk of it lightly just for political effect as you infer.
While any analyst should take note of the words that flow back and forth that are published in the media, they really should be read in conjunction with the reality of certain geo-political circumstances while, at the same time, being aware of the long term aims and goals of the players.
The civil war being carried on in Syria is because the people are fed up with Assad; simple as that. Yes, Assad supports Hezbollah and Hezbollah would rather Assad stay in power. But if Assad is overthrown, the new regime that replaces him is unlikely to suddenly become all friendly with Israel. Israel still occupies the Golan Heights which most Syrians, no matter which side they’re on, would dearly love to have back.
There is no big international conspiracy in Syria. Sure, the Israelis and the West want to see Assad gone and for that reason they are supporting the rebels but after the experience in Libya and Egypt, and to a lesser extent in Tunisia, the Israelis and the West also know that what replaces these regimes can be of even greater danger to them than those they’ve helped get rid off. Indeed, you might recall, Netanyahu pleaded with the US and the West to ensure that Mubarak in Egypt stay in control in the early days of that revolution. The Muslim Brotherhood and some of their offshoot organisations tend to bicker among themselves but none of them have any more time for Israel and the US than they do for Assad or Mubarak.
As for Iran, I can assure you the Mofaz will now support Netanyahu’s call for an attack against Iran; Netanyahu would not have taken him on board without that commitment. Mofaz’s opposition to an attack was simply because he was in opposition. Now he isn’t. It’s just politics.
Obama has given every indication that he will support Israel when push comes to shove though for the purposes of domestic politics in the run-up to the election, he will not be seen to support war. However, he has ensured that the US military is very much in place to be able to attack Iran at very short notice and, depending on how things are looking politically as the elections draw closer, Obama may be tempted to give the Israelis the green light.
Both Israel and Obama know that Iran has no nuclear weapon and, despite the rhetoric and the propaganda, there is still no solid evidence to even suggest Iran has a nuclear weapons program. They also know that, even if Iran did have a weapon, it would not be using it against Israel knowing full well what the consequences are likely to be.
The bottom line is this: This whole business about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ is just a massive con to provide a casus belli to attack Iran in order to affect regime change and provide an excuse to attack Hamas and Hezbollah in order to expand Israel into the West Bank and into the Gaza Strip and possibly even into south Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Time will tell.
By the way, it’s a pleasure to debate this serious stuff with someone who considers the arguments without accompanying it with abuse. Thanks for that.
Cheers
Lataan

By: sh

sh — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:30:22 +0000

You suppose much more than you read, Max. I used neither the word undemocratic nor the words volte face, you did. Nor did I say Mofaz alone lied, I referred to lies. You could say, if you wanted to be generous, that Bibi was keeping his options open, testing the waters when he announced elections and introduced his bill to dissolve the Knesset. But I don’t wish to be generous.
.
To move on to something else, what Rowan said about the left’s bundling policy planks is true. There are a few more than he mentioned, but doing it like that whittles down potential support no end. We all know the issue that needs prioritizing above all others.

By: max

max — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:21:42 +0000

@SH, thanks for the clarifications.
I happen to dislike Sharon – and not because of his volte face – and think that Begin was an ideologist blind to human reality, a sure recipe for failure in politics.
I also agree with your distinction between volte face and lie, but don’t understand how you know that Mofaz’ was a lie, and don’t see why a volte face is less undemocratic than a lie, when it touches the very principle you were elected for

By: sh

sh — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:10:18 +0000

There’s nothing to answer, Max. A lie is an intentionally false statement, deceit. A volte face is a major change of attitude without intent to deceive. Do I decry lies? Most certainly. Do I decry a volte face on principle? No, a change of mind or policy is not a bad thing in itself. You want to know whether I liked Begin and Sharon? Okay, no. Did I sometimes respect certain facets of Begin? Yes.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:04:50 +0000

Max,
Who said it was a problem?