Friday, March 20, 2015

What is Netanyahu thinking?

What is Netanyahu thinking about?

Not about atomic bombs, for sure.

He talks about them, but just like all folks talkin’ ‘bout heaven ain’t goin’ there, he doesn’t think about them.

In 1944, after listening to the report of a brave Polish patriot who had penetrated and then escaped from a German death camp, Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “I cannot believe this.”

Not “I do not believe this,” but cannot.

It’s a common reaction when presented with evidence that is too horrible to contemplate. We see it among people when a relative or neighbor is exposed as a swindler or pedophile; among business owners when it becomes obvious that an investment has been lost.

If Netanyahu had really thought about atomic bombs in Iranian (or, say, Hamas) arsenals, then he would have a strategy to deal with that.

The broad options are few: suasion, sanctions (or a combination of both) or force.

Netanyahu says he does not believe the Iranians would abide by a negotiated agreement, and I believe him. That leaves force.

Once you have chosen force, you must choose what kind and when.

If you were to believe Netanyahu’s speeches, the time was long ago. And, in fact, force has been used, though not decisive force.

A reactor was bombed, although not in Iran (in Iraq in 1981) and the Iranian uranium concentration operation was attacked via cybersabotage (Stuxnet). Neither was more than partially effective.

It is not obvious what degree of force would be effective.

It is not true that Iran could (and has) thwarted use of another air strike by moving its centrifuges underground. Purification of uranium by gaseous diffusion requires immense amounts of electricity, and the power plants are still above ground.

But it is probably true that bombing of Iran’s facilities would cause it to disperse them, which would, probably, require repeated bombing strikes.

It seems unlikely that world opinion would allow such a campaign to continue at no cost to the campaigners.
Occupation would be effective in stopping an atomic program, but the costs would be extremely high.

In any event, and for the same reasons that an endless, intermittent bombardment campaign is not practical, it is not believable that Israel could act alone.

And this is why I am sure Netanyahu has not really thought about the bomb issue. Because if he had, he would be doing something to recruit allies; and he is doing the opposite.

In the 1920s, the Bolsheviks, without allies, had to grapple with the question of whether there could be “communism in one country.” Netanyahu (if he thinks about it, which I doubt) must wonder if there can be “Zionism in one country.”

(My answer is, probably not, not if it is surrounded by 50 million hostile Arabs, but that is a question for another day.)

There is also the flip side of the bomb question: If Iran had a bomb (or several) what could it do with it?

Atomic bombs have not been used in warfare since 1945 because (among other things) it is hard to find targets for them. Especially if the other side has them, too.

It is possible that the Iranian crazies would consider it worthwhile to blanket Israel with bombs (it would take quite a few, because even atomic bombs have small blast footprints) even if that meant one or a few atomic bombs in return -- or, even if no bombs were dropped on Iran, the condemnation of the world.

Who knows? We have people that crazy in the Republican Party in the United States (see, for example, this).

Or maybe Iran could use its bomb for terror and extortion, although that is not how India, Pakistan, Israel and (perhaps) North Korea have used theirs.

It is obvious, though, that Netanyahu has thought of bombs but not really about them. If he had, he would act differently than he has.

14 comments:

  1. Netanyahu says he does not believe the Iranians would abide by a negotiated agreement, and I believe him. That leaves force.

    No, it doesn't.

    It leaves a great many options (one of which I think the Obama administration is using, much to its credit).

    The threat of massive retaliation. The likelihood that other countries in the region will also find their national security interests threatened, producing opportunities for concerted action against Iran.

    Oh, and this: kicking the can down the road. I think it extremely likely that Obama's policy is predicated on the likelihood that in 10 years the rot that is Iranian theocracy will have collapsed by then. I think he's right, but it isn't the kind of right you can't go around trumpeting.

    Clearly, Netenyahu doesn't see it that way — understandable, because for Israel this is an existential threat (one bomb on Tel Aviv would do the trick). The payback for Israel getting it wrong is far worse than for us.

    And this is why I am sure Netanyahu has not really thought about the bomb issue. Because if he had, he would be doing something to recruit allies; and he is doing the opposite.

    It is your thinking that has gone astray. Netenyahu is recruiting allies — he energized Republicans in Congress to point out the obvious, that an executive agreement can be repudiated in a heartbeat, or an election, while also pointing out that the Obama administration is continuing its long pattern of lawlessness. Also, Netenyahu put Jewish voters, who habitually, and mystifyingly, vote Democrat in a real quandry.

    And he highlighted the real flaw in the agreement — that it allows Iranians to do what they don't need to do, in the hope that the regime will collapse (like communism) before they do get the bomb.

    Atomic bombs have not been used in warfare since 1945 because (among other things) it is hard to find targets for them.

    Nonsense. But hey, what do I know, I only have first hand experience to go on.

    A reactor was bombed, although not in Iran (in Iraq in 1981) and the Iranian uranium concentration operation was attacked via cybersabotage (Stuxnet). Neither was more than partially effective.

    You forget a very suspicious facility the Israelis bombed in Syria a couple years ago.

    (My answer is, probably not, not if it is surrounded by 50 million hostile Arabs, but that is a question for another day.)

    Nonsense. Egypt is happy enough with Israel's existence. I doubt very much whether Jordanians, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Iranians give much of a damn.

    Who knows? We have people that crazy in the Republican Party in the United States (see, for example, this).

    So in addition to being a poster child for progressive a$$holery, Zoombag is an ignorant a$$hole.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What part of the video are you refusing to acknowledge this time?

    You know who else could repudiate an agreement? The government of Israel. As a parliamentary system, it could do so even easier than the US could.

    'the Obama administration is continuing its long pattern of lawlessness.'

    What particular law are you saying he broke by participating in an international negotiation? You really have drunk the Kool-Aid, haven't you.



    ReplyDelete
  3. Your post is completely at sea — it poses a non-existent dilemma, and accused Netenyahu of something about which your are manifestly guilty.

    Your comment about a Israel being more easily able to repudiate an agreement is both dubious and irrelevant. Dubious, because I doubt whether you know enough about Israel's parliamentary system to make that claim, and completely irrelevant here because Israel is not a party to either the negotiations or the agreement.

    Your analysis is paper thin, and full of holes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I realize Israel is not a party to these negotiations.

    What particular law are you saying Obama is breaking?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What part of the video are you refusing to acknowledge this time?

    I'm not talking about the video -- which must have been perfectly clear, even to the most casual and superficial reader, when I said Zoombag is an ignorant a$$hole. (Emphasis added, despite being an insult to casual and superficial readers.)

    She’s certainly done her research! She knows that Larry Klayman (and Joe Arpaio) got a judge to hear their lawsuit against “executive amnesty” — but instead of finding it illegal, the judge laughed the case out of court, which Virginia conveniently left out.

    What Zoombag conveniently eft out was that a Federal Judge has slammed the Obama administration for its immigration plan.

    He's certainly done his research!

    Oh, and I'm still waiting for that clip where Tea Partiers chant "Let him die".

    Or, alternatively, an update rather more closely connected with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I realize Israel is not a party to these negotiations.

    Then the point of [you] know who else could repudiate an agreement? The government of Israel. was?

    ReplyDelete
  8. That a letter pointing out how a rightwing American administration could repudiate an agreement was childish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. From the OP: That leaves force.

    Wrong.

    Having started off on the wrong foot, you never get off it. You may not have noticed, but this agreement has extends for 10 years. Consequently, it purports to do what it cannot. Pointing this out, both to the Obama administration and the mullahs cannot possibly be silly, they seem not to have been able so suss the obvious on their own.

    (Nor, it seems, have you, since you never bothered to notice, never mind square, that circle.)

    Further, as if that wasn't already far enough, aside from kicking the can down the road, it is difficult to fathom why Obama is so fired up to get an agreement in the first place, never mind one that seems to be giving the store away. Oil prices have greatly weakened the Iranian position; why give up now?

    That letter pointing out what the administration was trying to paper over also ensured this "executive agreement" got the attention it deserved, instead of MSM hagiography.

    (Also baffling -- how Obama could get so hissy about Netenyahu's remarks on the prospects for a two state solution, while completely ignoring Khamenei's "Death to America" during an Iranian press-conference about the agreement. Or maybe not, since Obama is by far the worst foreign policy president ever. Carter isn't even close.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I cannot understand anything you write here. But if you are proposing that with no agreement (always the most likely outcome) that Iran is about to surrender, I'll cover that bet, any amount.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Having started off on the wrong foot, you never get off it. You may not have noticed, but this agreement has extends for 10 years. Consequently, it purports to do what it cannot.

    What's so hard about that?

    Nothing; and the rest is obvious, too.

    But if you are proposing that with no agreement (always the most likely outcome) that Iran is about to surrender ...

    Strawman much?

    ReplyDelete
  12. A 'senior Israaeli offical' (who could that be, I wonder?) sez military action is still an option. I think my analysis was exactly right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your "analysis" was superficial and ignorant, and this comment is more of the same. It is a purely pro-forma statement of the obvious from the target of Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.

    Moreover, if you read newspapers, you would have found the US doing the same thing in a different way.

    ReplyDelete