Critics are already accusing the yet-to-be-formed Israeli government of “right wing extremism.” These charges range from the preposterous – such as the pronouncement by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, that a government led by Benjamin Netanyahu that also included Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman would be a “bad combination for American interests” — to the predictable – like Tzipi Livni’s disappointed utterance today over the fact that she will not be the next prime minister: “They didn’t vote for us in order to provide authorization for a right-wing government and we need to provide an alternative of hope from the opposition.”
But here’s the problem: no one is arguing with Livni that an “extreme right government” would not be a recipe for success. By the way, Netanyahu would be the first one to second her, and Israel Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman announced today that he prefers a unity government headed by Netanyahu. Most Israelis – according to polls – want a unity government. The rest of the world seems to want a unity government. A narrow right-wing coalition would be bad for morale, bad for stability, bad for Netanyahu’s chances of success, and bad for Israel’s image.
In fact, there’s only one thing worse than this scary “extreme right wing government” scenario, and that would be not having a government at all. If Livni chooses not to join the coalition and Labor remains in the opposition (left-wing Meretz, with its meager three mandates, has little bearing on the viability of a coalition) – who else would there be for Netanyahu to work with? Do these doomsday-prophets want Israel to vote again because they didn’t like the initial outcome? Do they want the interim government to stay in power indefinitely?
Of course, Netanyahu could always give Livni what she really wants: the prime ministership. She is hankering after the position, varnishing her ambition with the neutral pretense of “rotation.” But there’s a more proper term for what she is trying to do: not rotation – rather, extortion.
in the middle of this financial ciris and commentary is worried about Iran? you are more tone deaf than obama
The count:Today
Responses to foreign affairs Issues:17
” ” economic issues: 143
Just start out each morning with THE ECONOMY;it will self generate all day.
#1) Sorry–I do understand the pull of narcissism. Still, grown-ups realize the world isn’t kind enough to limit us to one crisis at a time. A nuclear Iran didn’t stop being a concern because your 401k tanked. But console yourself: since the administration seems unable or unwilling to address either threat, its circuits aren’t likely to overload.
“A nuclear Iran didn’t stop being a concern because your 401k tanked. ”
it was never a concern in the first place. I live in america , not israel. iran is their enemy, not mine. you should try and learn the difference between the two countries sometime besides thousands of miles and lots of water. maybe peruse that constitution thing. nothing about israel in there
All so much nonsense. Talk, talk talk. Negotiation with no end game is the way of those too fearful to act.
lester: The world does not stop rotating because the United States is in a recession. And, much as I fear the incompetence of those in charge, I think the government is capable of handling both domestic and foreign threats to our interests. Oh, I forgot, you don’t think Iran poses a threat to our national interests.
lester: Iran surely thinks it is our enemy. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that truth is not really the point, is it?
who is “we”? our governments enemies are not mine. I’m pro markets and anti war.
@7
Ah Lester, you still miss the point. When some one is pointing a gun at you, it doesn’t matter if you feel lucky; it only matters how if he feels like pulling the trigger. Still ignorance is bliss….
“They may hate Israel, they may hate ‘my’ government, but they do me no harm” is amusingly puerile at one level, but it requires a considerable lack of self-awareness to strike poses that turn entirely upon one’s ability to free-ride on the efforts and risks of others. Lester, I fear, is not terribly analytical. If he were, he’d realize that we all know one critical difference between Israel and an Iran: in Israel, as in the US, posturing, free-riding twits are indulged; in Iran, I gather, not so much. Lester better hope the distinction endures.
maynard- I really don’t care what life is like in israel or iran.
““They may hate Israel, they may hate ‘my’ government, but they do me no harm” is amusingly puerile at one level, but it requires a considerable lack of self-awareness to strike poses that turn entirely upon one’s ability to free-ride on the efforts and risks of others”
you have no concept of the united states or it’s constitution. we are not our government. what is so hard about that for you to understand? their concerns are not ours.
rod t- a recession is not only likely , it is happening. iran striking the continental united states with a nuclear weapon is extremely remote. thus I am concerned with one and not the other. I don’t fret about global warming either. Maybe if I were protfiting from one of these paranoias in one way or another I would pretend to.
“Lester”, I realize that your entire reason for existence is to snark around playing a “fortress America” paleocon.
But perhaps others can understand that there are things that can happen “Over There” that are not good for us “Over Here”.
A “nuclear Iran” is high on that “Bad-for-US” list — because:
1. If Iran goes nuclear, then the Saudis, Egyptians, Turks, and Iraqis will also go nuclear – because no sane person over there will trust a bunch of “cut-and-run” Democrats in Washington to stand up for them (or much of anything else) when things get tough.
2. A nuclear mid-East puts the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of the world’s most unstable peoples (and governments), in the world’s most critical resource region.
3. The Israelis, surrounded by these peoples and regimes, will have their own nukes on a state of permanent, hair trigger, panic alert – and will have seconds, not minutes, to make “very big” decisions about reacting to strange “blips” on radar screens (among other things).
4. Every one of the terror groups will be trying to beg, buy, or steal a few nukes from some corrupt, incompetent, or fanatic official in one of those corrupt, incompetent, fanatic regimes.
5. Then some city(s) somewhere (maybe yours), gets vaporized.
6. A nuclear “exchange” in the mid-East will have economic effects that make this recession look trivial.
7. The US President is the only person on earth who can stop this irreversible cascade from starting – and Barak Obama is unlikely to have the brains, spine, or balls to do anything but talk.
you are utterly and hopelessly paranoid which is why you are a perfect mark for the neocons
Tom,
Lester is merely exhibiting exactly the level of denial extent among many of Europe’s Jews just after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in Jan. of 33. People like him just can’t handle reality and they’ll die before they face up to it.
If the jahadhi’s ever have him on his knees with a sword ready to behead him, he’ll be blubbering incoherently about how this can’t be happening and how it’s all a terrible mistake. That it can’t happen to him because he has nothing against them and has said it for years.
Lester is just another pathetic appeaser who values nothing above his own skin.
“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety is a miserable creature. One who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” — John Stuart Mill
Lester: it’s coming clear. You see, I do care what life’s like in Israel and Iran, and it strikes me as far better in one than the other. And I’m far more concerned with Israel’s well-being than I am with Iran’s.
Let me try to explain. Imagine you have a friend. I know, I know–imagine, I said. See, people want good things for their friends, and bad things for bad people who bedevil their friends. If you had a friend, and the friend were constantly being attacked by thugs–think of it in those terms.
Now, it happens that some of us have friends. Some of our friends live next door, some live on the other side of the country, and some live on the other side of the world–but even with respect to the friends far away, we still want good things for them, and we want to help them if they’re beset by thugs.
Hell, Lester, assuming you’re not a bad person, just a little addled & creepy–I want good things to happen to you, and I’d help you fight off the thugs.
See how it works? Maybe you can find a support group and get started.
“Lester” (Re comment #12):
You just “dumped” a steaming pile of ad hominems and then hid behind it.
If that’s the best you’ve got, “you got nothin”, and you’re just playing stupid to stay in the game. Common tactic; very boring.
Thank you to everyone above for such an interesting thread.
For those (who should include lester) interested in the strategic implications of Iranian nuclear weapons — not only to our friends (including but by no means limited to Israel) but to us — I want to strongly recommend J. E. Dyer’s remarkable analysis, which should be read in its entirety at her blog “Optimistic Conservative”: http://tinyurl.com/bxg3xu.
A summary of her post is here: http://tinyurl.com/dbsph4. But the original really needs to be read in its entirety to fully appreciate her extraordinary analysis.
Iranian counterfeiting of U.S. money was the impetus for all the changes in currency. That makes them our enemy right there.
The politicos and the foreign policy wonks are simply out there beefing up the historical record. So that afterwards, after the dread exchange, after the eradication of over a hundred million Jews, Arabs and Persians, ———— the erasure from the Earth of Jerusalem, Tehran, “the holy city of Qom,” Riyadh, Mecca and Medina, and various other regional “hot spots,” that after all of that they’ll have enough on record to cover their ass when the mother of all finger pointing sessions commences in earnest.
CYA!
But nobody seriously intends to disturb Tehran, and nobody has any serious intention of letting the election of Netanyahu stand in the way of forcing Israel to cede territory, but of course cede territory “for peace.”
13″Lester is merely exhibiting exactly the level of denial extent among many of Europe’s Jews just after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in Jan. of 33″
anaolgies are the weakest possible way to make an argument. it’s not 1933. thus your argument isn’t apt, logically speaking. got anything else?
germany had a first clas militayr, iran has a bunch of leeky submarines and no air force. and they have thuosands of jews who, as far as i know, have not been brought to any concentration camps thusfar. when they are get back to me.
“If the jahadhi’s ever have him on his knees with a sword ready to behead him”
yuo are also paranoid. I live in the united states. how would a jihadi have me on my knees ready to behead me? what are they going to do ride their camels across the ocean? personal gun ownership is at an all time high. they’d be flayed alive before they got anywhere near me.
“Lester is just another pathetic appeaser who values nothing above his own skin.”
no, I would never appease the israel lobby , the militayr industrial complex, or anyone else who wants to drain the US of blood and treasure for their own profit and uses. Yuo , sir, are the appeaser because you willingly tow their line. for free no less!!
“ou see, I do care what life’s like in Israel and Iran, and it strikes me as far better in one than the other. And I’m far more concerned with Israel’s well-being than I am with Iran’s”
lol
“Lester” (Re #19):
–“anaolgies are the weakest possible way to make an argument.”—
Wrong.
Analogies are an excellent way to help someone see a parallel between something he’s already familiar with and something unfamiliar that he *could* understand – if he wanted to.
It assumes that he is willing to make the effort to understand the similarities and to temporarily ignore the differences at least until he does understand the similarities – which you are manifestly not willing to do.
I observe that whenever substance gets too difficult for you, (frequent occurrence), you duck behind dismissive personal slurs (as in #12 above), irrelevant trivia, and vague subject changes.
It’s very “unserious” – and I suspect it’s all you’re capable of.
Fester #19
“………Iran has thousands of Jews who, as far as I know, have not been brought to any concentration camps thus far.When they are, get back to me”
Reluctant as I am to revert to Fester about anything pertaining to decent human conduct, insofar as he is concerned, and since I am satisfied that there is no possibility, whatsoever of these two entities co-existing on any plane of shared experience, the twain being condemned to remain forever distant and apart in Fester’s World, I nevertheless find myself seized once more, of the need to again enter the brillig and the slithey toves, to grab this insolent Jabberwocky by its gnarled and odious tail, not to mention its foul forked tongue, and to remind the monster that of course these “Merry Persian Jews”, not to mention various other assorted Iranian minorities have, indeed, not made it, nor do they presentlly make it all the way to any concentration camps [of the sort which in the world according to Fester's ole buddy, Achmadinajad, did not exist in 1940s Europe anyways] due to the fact that they were and are, still, and as a nice cost-saving measure, simply shot or hanged in the public square, for either their “Zionist” [read being born Jewish] or Bahai or Gay-Person crimes, committed by these “undesirables”, before they get anywhere near to a quite redundant “concentration camp”.
Why, I ask myself, do I even bother with this guy, but then I realise that we, the rest of us, are not really free to abandon the field to those of Fester’s ilk, if we really, really do want a better world .
And so, dear Fester, if this blog post sounds much like a personal ad hominem attack on your very being, I am left with no other recourse than to confirm that it is, indeed so, you vile and evil creep!
21- so if ahmednajad does not exterminate jews in his own country he isn’t hitler. hitler hated all jews. why would they have an hewish minster in parliament if they had a nazi type ideology?
they have nothing against jews, they have alot against israel, not because it’s jewish but becuase it’s europeans claiming a piece of middle eastern land. israel could be christians atheists, or buddhists for all they care.
“–“anaolgies are the weakest possible way to make an argument.”—
Wrong.
”
hey believe that if you want, I learned it in philisophy 101 and that dude was smarter than you and I put together.
“Lester” (Re: #23)
–…”I learned it in philisophy 101 and that dude was smarter than you and I put together.”–
No. He wasn’t.
iran is nothing like nazi germany. they are a tiny backward nation. germany had a massive army and put their jewish citizens in concentration if they didn’t slaughter them outright. Iran has a small crappy army and they don’t do anything to their jewish population. it’s not paradise i ‘m sure but this is the middle east we are talking about.
So I’m really not seeing how “appeasing” a nation that isn’t going to try go to war with anyone, much less AMERICA which would be like a 3 second long war which they’d lose, is similar to people trying to play down the potential nazi threat in 1933 or 1938.
thus, when examined closely, analogies tend to fall apart which is why they aren’t used by people like my philosophy 101 teacher.
Lester (Re #25):
Returning to substance: Go and reread my comment #11. Address that scenario (or at least take the time to understand it). That is what is important in this situation.
30
tom paine- okay but let me reiterate that your scenerio is something a heavy heavy pot smoker with a tin foil hat might create and could never happen in a thousand years.
“. A nuclear mid-East puts the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of the world’s most unstable peoples (and governments), in the world’s most critical resource region.”
are they going to bomb the oil? they can’t eat oil. they need to sell the oil more than they need air. they are not going to mess with the oil.
second, these are good reasons why we shouod leave Iran alone so they don’t want a nuclear weapon. the reason elements in iran are pushing for missiles is the same reason north korea wanted them: us!! they don’t want want saddam got.
“. The Israelis, surrounded by these peoples and regimes, will have their own nukes on a state of permanent, hair trigger, panic alert – and will have seconds, not minutes, to make “very big” decisions about reacting to strange “blips” on radar screens (among other things).”
this is not the american taxpayers problem. we aren’ the worlds police. if israel wants to be aparnoid that is their business they are not going to export their paranoia to me and make it my problem. if they don’t like the neighborhood they can leave.
I believe in the law of the jungle, not central planning. 100%
“Every one of the terror groups will be trying to beg, buy, or steal a few nukes from some corrupt, incompetent, or fanatic official in one of those corrupt, incompetent, fanatic regimes.”
look. nuclear weapons are one kind of weapon. there are millions of types of weapons. rememeber 9/11? if they had tried to do something like that or even on a lesser scale with muclear materials it probably would have been traced and disrupted.
lets make a long story short: here is the crux of the problem with your argument:
our enemies are stateless terrorists. terrorist groups with very loose changing structures. in the 20th century the problem was rogue STATES: iraq libya, etc
by using the nuclear issue you are basically trying to modernize OLD enemeies by asserting their CONNETION to the NEW, REAL enemy. thus in 2003 Iraq becomes “terrorism” via WMD and alleged connections to al queda
this is false, obviously. a state is not a stateless terrorist group. understand? so we are right to be worried about the very loose terrorist trend but these states like iran and syria , whose main difference from other states in the region are that they don’t happen to be our client states like egypt or jordan, are not our concern in the 21 st century, nuclear boogeyman or not.
“6. A nuclear “exchange” in the mid-East will have economic effects that make this recession look trivial.”
our policies thus far have gotten things to this point. our interventionism. look at iraq, we back them during the 80′s, we go to war with them in the 90′s briefly then spend going on 6 years there a decade later at a cost of trillions.
we would have been better off never ever going anywhere near iraq for any possible reason. if we had embraced that policy in, say , 1950, Iran would have mossedegh jr as president, iraq would have some lame monarch or something and americans would be happy taking care of their own gardens and inventing things.
we need to rediscover our geographical advantage being away from all these old ethnic feuds. it’s what brought alot of our ancestors here
Lester (Re #27/28):
Ok, you have raised some issues I find interesting. (Several comments below).
#1
My original comment: “A nuclear mid-East puts the world’s most dangerous weapons in the hands of the world’s most unstable peoples (and governments), in the world’s most critical resource region.”
Your response: “are they going to bomb the oil? they can’t eat oil. they need to sell the oil more than they need air. they are not going to mess with the oil.”
Reply: You miss the point. There is a reason cigarettes are not allowed in gasoline storage depots. The ME is a region of repressed, frustrated, angry populations going nowhere under oppressive, unresponsive governments that deliberately foster distrust and hatred between ethnic, national, and political groups to keep themselves in power. Frustrated, angry people, some of whom are in these governments, and who have developed habits of “blaming the other”, are not rational actors to any notable degree. Westerners, who tend to be much less frustrated, don’t get this. Consider the phenomenon of suicide-bombing to get a sense of what frustrated, angry individuals can do to others who they are told are “enemies” – and for no worthwhile reason.
(Re #27/28):
#2
Your comment: “…the reason elements in iran are pushing for missiles is the same reason north korea wanted them: us!! they don’t want want saddam got.”
Reply: This is the ludicrous old “blame-America-for-everything” nonsense. And it’s also a completely bogus issue. Dictatorships can be expansionist or non-expansionist. (Democracies are inherently non-expansionist.)
America always virtually ignores non-expansionist dictatorships (supply your own examples). But expansionist dictators like Saddam, the Khomeinists, Hitler, Stalin, etc. cannot be ignored – because they start wars, foster revolutions in the democracies, and make all sorts of other trouble that disrupts the world economic and trading system, on which our position, prosperity, and safety depends as much as anyone else’s (or more).
A dictatorship that really wants America to leave it alone will keep its brutality strictly inside its own borders. And they all understand this (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia) — or could if they wanted to. It’s not difficult. Khadaffi “got it” some years ago and gave up his nuke program. He’s now safe from invasion and he knows it. (Note: I’ve left out a lot in this concept area that you’re going to have to interpolate for yourself.)
Summary: Only an expansionist dictatorship needs nukes to protect it from America.
(Re #27/28):
#3
My original comment: “. The Israelis, surrounded by these peoples and regimes…”
Your response: “…this is not the american taxpayers problem. we aren’ the worlds police….”
Reply: That is beside the point. The issue is that the potential for catastrophic error goes up by an order of magnitude (at least) – and it’s not just error from the Israeli side. Arabs (in this era of history) are not known for cool, rational, unemotional self-control. That includes the individuals (at all levels) who will be in charge of Arab (& Iranian) nukes.
A catastrophic error leading to even a local, limited, nuclear exchange in the world’s most important resource region will have catastrophic effects on world economics and trade. (That means on US.)
(Re #27/28):
#4
Your comment: “…if they had tried to do something like that or even on a lesser scale with muclear materials it probably would have been traced and disrupted.”
Reply: Unserious. Hope and faith are not strategies for preventing anything.
#5
“…our enemies are stateless terrorists….”
Not so. SOME of our enemies are stateless terrorists. Others — and the Mullahs self-define as being among them — are in charge of states. And some of the stateless ones are supported (massively) by those states (Hamas, Hezbollah). Iran even supports Al-Qaeda to a degree (e.g. Bin Laden’s son lives in Iran and is active in Al-Qaeda).
Nor are our enemies just “terrorists”. Terrorism (in this era) is deliberately bred through a loosely connected set of related ideologies we can label “Islamo-Fascism”. Islamo-fascism comes in secular, Sunni, Shia, and a few minor variants. They don’t always get along. And they are nothing like “centrally-controlled”. But like protestants and catholics, they share basic viewpoints, one of which is that liberal democracy (that means US) is their enemy, and that attacking us through escalating terrorism and taking over states (whenever possible), is how they’ll fight us.
(Re #27/28):
#6
“…we would have been better off never ever going anywhere near iraq for any possible reason….”
Reply: Wrong. Saddam started a war with Iran to seize the Khuzestan province (where most of Iran’s oil is.). He seized Kuwait for its oil. He was clearly hoping to be allowed control (formal or not) over Saudi Arabia. In other words, he was going for control of the ME oil supply. I’m not going to explain why that’s bad. You can figure it out for yourself – if you want to.
(Re #27/28):
#7
Your comment: “…if we had embraced that policy in, say , 1950, Iran would have mossedegh jr as president….”
Reply: This is more of the “America’s responsible for everyone else’s bad behaviour” nonsense. And it’s a misreading of history.
America opposed Mohammad Mosaddeq because it believed he was or would become a tool of an expansionist Soviet Union (right across Iran’s northern border). The Soviets always highly-prioritized gaining a warm-water port on the Persian Gulf, and Iran was a prime target for takeover in the ‘50s.
Others can argue whether we “got it right” on Mosaddeq specifically. But America MUST oppose expansionist dictatorships (USSR, in this case) – for its own self-preservation (same as my point #2 above).
#8
Your comment: “…let me reiterate that your scenerio is something a heavy heavy pot smoker with a tin foil hat might create and could never happen in a thousand years.”
Reply: I feel “put in my place” to the exact degree that your rebuttals warrant.
I will admit that, since you’ve gotten serious about substance, I find the process more interesting.
well. we see where we disagree. you have complicated and I would argue paranoid aarguments FOR interventionism. I have simple if superficially cold hearted arguments against it.
my approach would save us alot of money. I believe it would also make blowback against us less likely and make us less hated in the arab world which would be a major deterrent to recruiting efforts by al queda.
your approach woul cost us alot of money at a time when we have none to spare. it would keep al quedas recruitment up, violence towards them doesn’t deter them no matter how many we kill, and keep arab opinion, the opnion of the people not the dictators we give billions too, very very low.
so we would basically buying ourselves alot of grief and be helping absolutely no one except the dictators in saudi arabi and other places (who are despised by their people) and making us much much less safe.
but we would be I guess be helping israel solve one of many short term problems. thus, I have to wonder whose interests you have at heart here
Lester (Re #35):
I’m disappointed.
You’ve suddenly retreated to a disconnected set of Buchannanite talking points that completely ignore the current situation in the ME and everything we’ve discussed up to now — especially the points in my comments #29 – #34.
Disappointed, but not surprised. Serious (substantive) discussion is difficult — takes a lot of time and effort to do. Most people can’t really handle it.
And when they stop trying, it’s usually a sign that the discussion is over.
My summary: We are not “Fortress America”. Our economy is very “intimately” connected to the rest of the world. If the ME blows up, WE will be hurt — very badly.
” If the ME blows up, WE will be hurt — very badly”
I agree 100%.
I want to trade with iran. i want to lift sanctions on them. you want to bomb them. who is being pro market here?
what are our interests in the middle east?
answer: cheap oil and no terrorism.
how do we achieve this?
this is, again, where we disagree.
lets look at vietnam. we fought vietnam for a decade. we lost and left. vietnam fiddled with communism for a couple decades and eventually realized that it was pretty stupid.
today, we are trading with vietnam and they are practicly begging us to open sweatshops there.
thus, we “won” the war with markets, not bombs. vietnam is still ostensibly communist but I’m not really worried about any domino effect there are you?
anti war, anti state, pro market. always and in every case
Lester (Re #37):
There are some non-sequiturs here.
Me: “–If the ME blows up, WE will be hurt — very badly”
You: “–I agree 100%.”–
My reply: I’m pleased you agree. But you still fail to see why the current trajectory – i.e., Iran “on course” to nuclear weapons – will massively increase the chances of the ME blowing up – Regardless of Anything Else WE might do.
That is the entire point of the scenario in my Comment #11 above — which you have labeled “tin-foil hat” stuff, but not attempted to challenge in any substantive way. (BTW, I would like to see a point-by-point “rebuttal” attempt on #11, because I think you’d start to “get it” if you really tried that.
—-
You: –“I want to trade with iran. i want to lift sanctions on them.”—
My reply: Ok, but you’ve ignored my distinction between non-expansionist dictatorships like the Saudis & Egyptians, which are tolerable (though just barely). and which we can trade with – and expansionist dictatorships which must be opposed, whether we also trade with them or not.
Expansionist dictatorships deliberately cause trouble outside their own borders. They start wars (e.g. Saddam). They foment rebellions in neighbors (Iran/Sadr). They support terror groups (Hamas/Hezbollah). In short, they try to achieve political domination of others. Non-expansionist dictatorships do not do this, which is the reason they can be tolerated (though never admired).
The Saudis & Egyptians in particular won’t put up with nuclear bullying from Iran – they’ll develop their own nukes to “rebalance” their power relationships. (They may be non-expansionist, but they are still nasty authoritarians and not going to give up power.) The rest of my scenario in Comment #11 follows inevitably from that.
—–
You: –“what are our interests in the middle east? –“answer: cheap oil and no terrorism. –“how do we achieve this?”
My reply: You didn’t answer your own question. Instead, you segued off into a Vietnam analogy, which is a rhetorical quagmire all its own. And again, it ignores the nature of the dictatorship involved.
I request that you attempt a point-by-point rebuttal of my comment #11 scenario. That is the cliff the world is headed toward and you’ve mainly been talking around it so far.
which destablized the middle east more: saddam husseins regime or our getting rid of saddam hussein?
the latter. and it would be the same with iran.
“Ok, but you’ve ignored my distinction between non-expansionist dictatorships like the Saudis & Egyptians, which are tolerable (though just barely). and which we can trade with – and expansionist dictatorships which must be opposed, whether we also trade with them or not”
one, china is an expansionist dictatorship, ask anyone in tibet or xinjian, who we trade with. Iran is not expansionist and we don’t trade with them.
saudi arbabia isn’t “better” than iran or any other dictatorship. some of these states are uor client states, some aren’t. that is a random distinction not based on the quality of these regimes.
“The Saudis & Egyptians in particular won’t put up with nuclear bullying from Iran – they’ll develop their own nukes to “rebalance” their power relationships”
so be it. what do I care? let them nuke each other.
I deny your request for a point by point rebuttal of your post. we are having a discussion and we can each choose to talk about what we want and are not beholden to the other. you didn’t present me anythign so radical it challenged me in your query it is just tedious.
you are an interventionist, I am opposed to interventionism.
you think the united states is the only thing bringing stablity to the middle east. I think it is the central thing bringing instability to it.
Lester (Re #39)
You continue to dance away from (and reject) any discussion of what 5 or 6 nuclear-capable countries in the ME would really mean for America and the world.
And it’s obvious you want this small discussion to end.
Very well. So do I.
our efforts to stablize the middle east have not worked in the past, as is evidenced by it’s current lack of stablity. why would any more intervention have a DIFFERENT effect?
I don’t care about the middle east, it’s a largely uproductive region and I am happy to buy oil from whoever manages to get themselves elected or couped in or whatever.