Comments on: War with Iran is closer than we think

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:46:31 +0000

Matthew Yglesias made a good observation that news provide fodder for speculation and speculators, and we can read in financial pages the nature of those news.

Besides war premium, there are some arcane effect of making Brent oil more expensive relative to other types of oil and strangely high premium that people in California pay compared with the East and Midwest.

By: BOB

BOB — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:24:22 +0000

so do speculators.

By: Bill Pearlman

Bill Pearlman — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:30:19 +0000

Very witty my KGB friend. But high oil prices have alot more to do with the federal reserve then they do with anything else.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 05:19:00 +0000

“We hope that if he is re-elected in November,” Channel 10 television quoted officials as saying, “that he will appreciate Israel’s restraint, if, in fact, Israel maintains restraint.”

How much restraint would the woodchuck show, if the woodchuck could chuck wood, and if it would not. These lovely animals are ubiquitous in the swath of USA where I live, and I am yet to observe one chucking wood. Usually they show admirable restraint. Unlike beavers.

And high gasoline prices are good for the environment.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:48:00 +0000

Perhaps as an American I should not comment, but here goes: The more Netanyahu and the American hard right beat the war drums, the higher the gas prices. That slows the economy and threatens to derail the pitifully slow repairing of what our wonderful bankers did to us and the world. That threatens Obama’s already fragile re-election chances, and if any of our looney Republican candidates win, war will not be an “if” but a “when” (anti-war Ron Paul has no chance). The sabre rattling benefits the loonies.
Further, in my mind, another war would bring America that much closer to economic collapse; we can’t fight another trillion dollar war on a credit card, and Iran would be worse than any of our past and current stupidities: the drug war, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Another “when,” not “if” is the coming end of the American empire. Israel would have to look for new friends. Only the Christian Nationalist Party (read Republicans) cannot see it.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:29:52 +0000

Prophet (PBUH) said that there are 72 sects of Jews, 72 sects if Christians and there will be 73 sects of Muslim. Clerics that rule Iran are not operating under the assumption that “all Jews are the same”.

Perhaps it has some relevance that Ovadia Josef, perhaps the top Jewish Sephardi cleric, opposes the attack on Iran?

I guess the best scenario for Israel is an attack that would fail utterly, like helicopters of Jimmy Carters. It would be not nice for Netanyahu and Barak, but otherwise the consequences would be negligible.

By: Dhalgren

Dhalgren — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:19:18 +0000

AIG’s response to Aristeides is flawed and indicative of the larger misperceptions at play in this magnification of the Iranian threat. The threat of reprisals for Iranian Jews in the event of an Israeli attack would come from certain members of the Iranian civilian population and not from the Iranian government. The current Iranian government from the start has protected the rights of Iranian Jews (Khomeini issued a fatwa protecting Jews in Iran following the revolution). This can contribute to an argument against a view of the Iranian government as irrational while still allowing for concerns about reprisals against Iranian Jews.
-
Plus, it is not required of opponents of military action to trust Iran with a nuclear weapon, as there is no proof that Iran is seeking one. Currently, what evidence there is would not distinguish Iran from any of the countries (e.g. Japan) that have sought and now possess nuclear latency. Fear is an insufficient justification for military action. There has to be a demonstration of immanent threat. As of now, there is not one. Of course, the Iraq War has made it clear certain nations have no respect for the rule of law.

By: aristeides

aristeides — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:53:40 +0000

AIG – may I introduce you to the term “rational SELF interest”?

.
Iran, indeed, might find it in its own interest to safeguard its Jewish citizens. But this, I think, is not Netanyahu’s reasoning. Of course, according to Netanyahu’s reasoning, genocidal Iran should have already exterminated its Jewish population and turned their skins into lampshades. If you’re looking for irrational, I point you in his direction.

By: Aaron the Fascist Troll

Aaron the Fascist Troll — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:27:10 +0000

So Barak wouldn’t set meaningless deadlines because it would wreck Israel’s credibility? Maybe you’re too young to remember Barak’s disastrous term as prime minister. During the Aksa intifada, he delivered ultimatums right and left to the Palestinians. They ignored each one, and each time, Barak just proceeded to issue another ultimatum with another deadline as if nothing had happened, which was then ignored, and so on. I mean, Barak had more red lines than the Kineret.
*
Maybe he and Netanyahu aren’t bluffing now, and if they are, maybe they’ll for forced to act, as you say. I have no idea. But no matter how logical your a priori argument is, we know a posteriori that Barak doesn’t always act that way.

By: AIG

AIG — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:26:50 +0000

ARISTEIDES,

Why should we worry about the Iranian Jews? We know good people like you will be there for them to denounce and alleviate any action against them.

Seriously, you cannot have it both ways. If the Iranians are rational as you believe, then why would they harm Iranian Jews that have nothing to do with Israel’s actions? The fact that you think they may be harmed, shows that you do not believe the Iranian government to be rational after all. In that case, why would you trust them with a nuclear weapon?