Aramagedon
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 8,798
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Noam Chomsky: 'What exactly is the threat of Iran?'
"We feel free to attack people anywhere and kill them who we claim might be planning to attack us in the future, if anyone else did that we would nuke them."
I have to say I agree with him, could you imagine if any other country attacked American citizens on American soil because they said they claimed that were planning something.
No kidding. We have relations with Pakistan, and it's easily argued that Iran is far more stable, rational, and modernized than Pakistan.
The US is also the only country to ever use nuclear weapons as an attack on human beings. Civilians nonetheless. I've always felt that it's incredibly hypocritical that we are the ones who are then constantly accusing other nations of wanting to do the same.
Don't get caught up in the rhetoric from Iran, especially since it's far from reality. US politicians have spectacular rhetoric as well. Have you witnessed Trump, Cruz, Graham, Huckster, Bush, McCain, Perry and others over the last decade? You'd think we are on the verge of war with every country with fewer than 10 Caucasians living in it, so don't assume Iran is any different.
Pakistan harbored OBL and supports the Taliban against our efforts in Afghanistan for the last 14 years. They have citizens and police who routinely burn/stone people who don't adhere to Islam. Look what they did to Mallala for just going to school to learn.
Israel is the real threat to peace.
Hey, mythological origin stories are a perfectly good reason to displace a people from their homes.
They could even produce evidence using clips from our media. No need to try and find hidden documents secreted in caves. If Iran flew a drone to kill John McCain after his suggestion that we "bomb bomb bomb Iran", what do you think our response would be?
Jews have millennia of attested habitation there quite apart from anything written in the Bible,...
I think that's a bit disingenuous.
If the international community had offered the Jews some other place to settle in 1948, land of equal size, land whose current occupants were willing to happily vacate -- Jamaica, say. Or the Austrailan outback or the Florida panhandle -- the Jews would have rejected that offer. Utterly. Unequivocally. Without a doubt. Why? Because they have a 2500 year old book which says God promised the land of Palestine to them.
Think about that.
All of the hatred and strife. All of the innocent Israelis killed by suicide bombers, all of the innocent Palistinians killed by airstrikes, the Six Day war, the Yom Kippur war, Hezbolla, Hammas, Christian Jihad, the refugee camps, the US marines killed in Lebanon, the sailors killed on the Cole, the 3000 Americans killed on 9/11, ISIS, the rise of a nuclear amibitious Iran, all of it is because of a fucking fairy tale.
Golda Meir once said there won't be peace until the Palestians love their children more than they hate Israel. It seems to me there won't be peace until the Israelis hate misery more than they love nonsense.
I want to live in a world where Noam Chomsky gets all the media buzz in the run up to his candidacy.
Instead of living in real-life Idiocracy.
1) If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could easily acquire one, pret-a-porter from any one of their allies.
2) Were they to use said weapon in a first strike, they would be cease to exist as a country.
3) If they used it in retaliation to an invasion, it would be justified and therefore serve as a deterrent.
Ask yourself again, why would Iran want such a weapon, and why is Israel fighting so hard to stop them from acquiring one?
It's not that complicated folks.
That's the US interest in Pakistan. With a military relationship with the US, their risk of getting steamrolled by India is reduced, and they are more secure. Ideally, this leads to them both behaving more rationally, investing more in diplomacy, and making the threat of that regional WWIII variant less likely.
In the case of Iran, the threat is a little different. We want to prevent nuclear proliferation because of the risk of MAD breaking down, and the economic and security burden nuclear weapons place on a government. The problem isn't just Iran getting an atomic weapon. If they can't miniaturize it for a ballistic missile, they're not much of a threat. They can't let the weapon get into the hands of anyone who'll use it, atmospheric sampling will ID the fingerprint predicted for their weapon, and the result will be a submarine launched nuclear reprisal. So they have their nuclear weapons which can't do anything but protect them from a ground invasion and make their economy that much worse. But it also creates the security need in it's neighbors. Now Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al need nukes. That necessarily takes some of the most able citizens away from jobs that provide more economic benefit, and reduces those governments investment in economic development and basic security. The whole region gets poorer faster, and stays that way as long as they have the nuclear burden.
When people don't have those kinds of fundamental building blocks of a life worth living, things like the Arab Spring happen. And while there'll be the occasional Tunisia which looks like it's getting it's shit together, there is the other side too. Syria being the extreme potential downside.
Yeah, it's really crazy what went down at the end of the war. Especially with the firebombing of 67 Japanese cities before the 2 bombs (Also firebombing in Germany, etc.). Curtis LeMay said that if we lost the war all of our leaders would have been arrested, tried, and executed as war criminals. So what makes it moral if you win the war, but immoral if you lose the war? That's a small essay question I give my students, anyways.
If GOP think that Iran is unstable they should read a history book and figure out why it's so.
It's like cheating on your spouse. Once you do it, you're always paranoid about them cheating on you.
What about just good ol' American "We gun take dis land now cuz it look gud"?
What about good old every-fucking-body ever since the beginning of our species?
To the US? Small, to nil. To Israel? Mild.
Why? M.A.D. didn't suddenly stop being a compelling reason 'not' to go to war when the USSR fell apart. Iran can pester Israel via proxies, but can't win with that route. Until the Sunni/Shia divide is crossed (not happening any time soon), there's no great chance for a Pan-Arab or Pan-Islam alliance to come together to attack them.
They can stare and growl at each other, and occasionally toss nettles, and that's all.
When the bombs were dropped, there were two choices on the table. A) Drop the Bombs, kill a lot of people, and the war ends now b/c you scared the shit out of Japan. B) Invade Japan, lose 2 million US soldiers, and kill at least 10 million Japanese soldiers and citizens. So, which one was better? I'd go w/ option A if those were my choices.
You're onto something. These are T.E. Lawrence's thoughts on the 1916 Arab revolt against the Ottomans. It would be...
beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic 'bloc' and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states [Sharif Hussein] would set up to succeed the Turks would be … harmless to ourselves … The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion.
And that they did.
I really don't understand why people say this. Are you suggesting the US should not try and prevent nuclear proliferation? I see this as being along the lines of suggesting Germany shouldn't try and prevent discrimination in other countries because of it's actions during WWII.
In a way, the experience gives the US a unique perspective on how easy it can be to justify using nuclear weapons. If anything, I feel the US should play up the fact that it's the only country to have used them and the repercussions of their use.
We also have our politicians constantly on tv saying bomb Iran, so we probably shouldn't be overly concerned with peaceful. They've been living under the threat of constant American involvement, after fending off an invasion from at the time an american supported dictator, who was attempting to exploit internal Iranian issues caused by, you guessed it, us. Hell we offered tons of support for the aggressor as soon as Iran managed to make progress. We were directly supporting their attackers in an incredibly brutal war, right after the revolution. Like honestly, why the hell shouldn't Iran hate us?
Iran is not our friend, and is not friendly towards us, and neither should they be. We support their enemies, we push a distinctly anti Iran agenda, we treat them like war mongers while we rush around the world bombing people.
Hell when they started to really win the war against their aggressors we made them stop. Not even any reparations. Of course the last country WE were attacked by had multiple nuclear weapons dropped on defenseless cities. So we're not big on practicing what we preach either.
The Iranian government are not good guys by any measure. They do terrible things (Iranian people are pretty cool). But so does our government, and we've done a hell of alot more to destroy world peace in the last few decades than they have, yet they're the terrible bad guys. Our buddies the Sauds are cutting heads off left and right, but the Iranian boogey man still haunts our dreams.
This is incorrect. Benjamin Netanyahu showed us an image of the bomb Iran has. It was an incredibly detailed image that proves 100% Iran has a nuclear weapon.
Actually, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives.
In order to end WWII in the Pacific, the U.S. military had been planning a land invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall. Conservative projections for the casualties involved ran into the millions.
Thankfully, Downfall never got out of the planning stages, because of the surrender provoked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This ended the war with, at most, 250,000 casualties. That's about 750,000 lives that weren't lost thanks to the bombings.
That isn't to say that it's not monstrous to use atomic weapons on civilians, but it's completely justified when it's actually the least horrible of the available options.
If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could easily acquire one, pret-a-porter from any one of their allies.
Don't think its quite as simple as James Bond movies make it out to be. You would have to buy one, with nobody involved in the transaction leaking the information. You would then have to buy the radar equipment and launch devices to effectively use the weapon, again without anyone discovering. And if you literally had "1" it would somehow have to survive US/Israeli sabotage and airstrikes. Also, a single warhead or even a small group of warheads can be somewhat reliably defeated (the current state-of-the-art missile defense shields can be easily overwhelmed by a salvo but are somewhat reliable against individual missiles). Much different scenario if you can start building them yourself.
Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in the face of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without pretext. Israel also refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections. They continue to defy the international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region.
I see alot of comments which mistake geopolitics for politics. The former is the Big Boy game in which real decisions have real effects. The latter, which is Chomsky's specialty, is the lies politicians tell us in order to obtain the consent of the people to take the actions necessary to carry out the former. Chomsky's book 'Manufacturing Consent' is a de facto admission of this fact.
While what NC says is mostly true, he, and other academics, actors, commentators etc have the luxury of not having to take any actions, or, more to the point, take responsibility for those actions.
The salient facts in this matter are as follows:
Nukes are bad. The less nukes in the world, the better;
The countries that currently possess nukes (with one very important exception) are rational actors - they are not going to use those weapons unless under existential threat;
Those countries that have nukes face, or have faced, real existential threats (except Pakistan and India - that was Nationalistic stupidity) - that's why they have them;
The Middle East is only important because of oil, once it's gone, the rest of the world will pay as much attention to it as we do to sub-Saharan Africa;
Islam's 90 year civil war ended with victory for the Islamists over the moderates/secularists;
The current proxy war for control of the oil (and hence influence) is between Iran-led Shia Islam, and Saudi/GCC-led Sunni Islam (Side note: OBL's greatest victory was dragging America into this war to further radicalise both sides);
If Iran gets nukes this will have two effects: the Saudis will get nukes from Pakistan with all the potentially apocalyptic scenarios that that entails; and Iran will then be significantly less vulnerable to American pressure - this is why North Korea gets away with its batshit crazy antics and why, despite their ridiculously miniscule influence, we have to deal with them - nobody wants this (see point 1).
Now, many of you will be asking why it's okay for America to have nukes, invade other countries, support dictators etc. The simple answer is that, as far as empires go, The US Empire has been relatively benevolent. It has not been perfect, but ruling the world is like being the toughest kid in the schoolyard - sometimes you gotta do bad shit to prevent worse shit. Ask yourself this question: 'Would the world be a better place if the Ayatollahs' Iran was the ruling world empire?' Those of you pondering the answer should probably have a quick look at their internal human rights record, sponsorship of terrorism, holocaust denial etc.
So, to sum up, NC is right, Iran isn't a current existential threat to the US/Europe, but those who work in geopolitics have to consider alot of potential future scenarios. And, more importantly, unlike NC, they need to take responsibility for their words and actions.
I sincerely hope that the US foreign policy of the past 15 years can retrurn to Realpolitik after the nightmare of the Bush neocon experiment and the rudderless Obama years.
Always happy to discuss.
TL
R - NC is right, but being right isn't important in geopolitics.
you can make a much stronger case against Israel, who have spied for, and stolen, nuclear secrets for decades, assembled several hundred nuclear weapons, refused to join the NPT, refused to allow inspections.
If there is a "clear and present danger" in the nuclear proliferation arena, it is Israel, and has been for years.
Calling Israel the threat to peace is simplistic and glosses over many key points.
Israel has a tendency, especially lately, to react strongly and harshly to any provocations, even small provocations. In that sense, if you think of Israel as having a "quick trigger", then they might be viewed as a threat to peace.
The problem with that viewpoint is it ignores that these are, almost without exception, reactions. The only thing they do (that people criticize) that is not directly reactive is continue to build settlements in disputed territories. To Israel's opposition, continuing to build those settlements (and, when relevant, destroying or displacing anything that may have been there beforehand) qualifies as unjustified provocations. But that ignores the greater historical setting - 1) Israel has been invaded multiple times without provocation in it's 67 year history; 2) several neighboring governmental leaders (and in some cases entire governing bodies) believe Israel has no right to exist and advocate its destruction; and 3) by it's original boundaries is/was an absurdly skinny country, and any populated area could be hit by a rocket/missile launched from within Gaza or the West Bank.
After one such invasion, Israel took the West Bank and Gaza, and kept them to provide buffer zones as protection against future invasions. And note that, claiming territory conquered during a war is normal throughout human history. Furthermore, they felt the need to widen their geographic limits, as one of many pieces of their strategy to defend themselves against attack - hence the disputed settlements. And it doesn't help Israel's perception that they have a very hawkish Prime Minister.
Then the added sensationalism of capitalist media really causes problems. Media company's need profits to continue, and they profit off ad sales (ie increased clicks/viewership/readership), so highlighting the sensational pieces of the stories and skipping the layers of complexity that completely reverse the significance of the story.
Some examples:
Israel gets criticized for bombing a a school or a hospital. However, especially in Gaza, militants intentionally select these locations as bases/headquarters, using the children or the sick as human shields, creating a win-win scenario. Either the militants stay alive and keep operating, or Israel gets slammed for blowing up a school. Israel gets criticized for blockading Gaza and not even allowing aide vessels into the country without inspections. But when Israel allowed an aide floatilla, it turned out to have included significant supplies of illegal weapons.
Quick readings of the headlines, or only fringe interest in the topic can easily paint Israel as the "bad guy", but a deeper look into the topic either turns that on its head entirely, or at least reveals a far, far murkier picture.
When we took saipan and okinowa thousands of japanese civilians committed suicide because of fear, the propaganda made them believe the americans would torture them. Thousands more died in the fighting either accidentally or from being pressed in to service. Between the two islands it is estimated that as many as 160,000 civilians lost their lives.
There was going to be a lot of death on the mainland no matter what. The nuke saved our soldiers, sailors and airmen from having to endure any further losses.
Oh - you mean the Iran which fought a war against Saddam which was essentially a US proxy attack against Iran? The same Iran which overthrew the brutal dictatorship of the Shah (a US client). The same Iran which hears US "statesmen" threaten Iran with attack on a regular basis? The same Iran which had a passenger plane shot out of the sky by trigger happy US military?
Golly - why would Iran be angry with the US?
There was a pretty sizable proportion of Jews that weren't convinced that Palestine was the best place for them. There was a movement claiming territory and buying up land there since the late 1800's, but it was hardly uniform among Jews around the world. But they weren't offered Bavaria, (as would have been most just), or land in Europe, or Russia, or the Americas.
So they took what they could get. But to say Jews, as a monolith, would have refused, is completely wrong.
The GOP village idiot Scott Walker has been screaming how he would bomb Iran the first day in office It is called playing to your base. The radical islam groups are the Koch brothers of the middle east. If you want to stay in power, you must openly hate the USA and the concept of Israel.
Edit: for fun here is anotherhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/02/scott-walker-ill-blow-up-any-iran-de...
and exactly the same case can be made for Iran, although I suspect that you won't accept or believe that.
That said, both Israel and US intelligence services have stated for years that Iran hasn't had a nuclear weapons program since at least 2003, making them much less of a risk as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. I realise that reality doesn't fit the current Israeli and US neo-con propaganda, but it has the benefit of actually being true, unlike that same propaganda.
It's also hyperbole
Jews have millennia of attested habitation there quite apart from anything written in the Bible, and their historical displacement by imperialist Europeans (i.e. Romans) is also a matter of history rather than myth.
War Crimes are one of those things that can only exist if you don't think about them too hard. I mean, it starts with the contradictory goal of making war civil.
Go away, 'batin'.
Now Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al need nukes.
I'm not convinced Saudi Arabia does not have them and Turkey hosts ours.
Not sure if this changes your point any.
Many commentors on this subreddit refuse to acknowledge that "Death to America" is a common rallying cry in Iran. Last time I linked a similar article, all of the replies said something along the lines of "well, Americans are no different towards Iran." Its pretty absurd.
Edit: The downvote brigade is real, instant negative karma score after posting this. Why are you trying to suppress other peoples views on a public and anonymous internet forum?
Netanyahu has been saying Iran is 1 or 2 years away from the bomb since as least '92. He's a fear monger and war monger to gain political favor and should not be taken seriously in regards to Iran.
Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism as Iran does. Israel doesn't sponsor radical Shia clerics that inflame sectarian violence in the Middle East. Iran is certainly a much greater contributor to instability in the Middle East.
"We feel free to attack people anywhere and kill them who we claim might be planning to attack us in the future, if anyone else did that we would nuke them."
I have to say I agree with him, could you imagine if any other country attacked American citizens on American soil because they said they claimed that were planning something.
No kidding. We have relations with Pakistan, and it's easily argued that Iran is far more stable, rational, and modernized than Pakistan.
The US is also the only country to ever use nuclear weapons as an attack on human beings. Civilians nonetheless. I've always felt that it's incredibly hypocritical that we are the ones who are then constantly accusing other nations of wanting to do the same.
Don't get caught up in the rhetoric from Iran, especially since it's far from reality. US politicians have spectacular rhetoric as well. Have you witnessed Trump, Cruz, Graham, Huckster, Bush, McCain, Perry and others over the last decade? You'd think we are on the verge of war with every country with fewer than 10 Caucasians living in it, so don't assume Iran is any different.
Pakistan harbored OBL and supports the Taliban against our efforts in Afghanistan for the last 14 years. They have citizens and police who routinely burn/stone people who don't adhere to Islam. Look what they did to Mallala for just going to school to learn.
Israel is the real threat to peace.
Hey, mythological origin stories are a perfectly good reason to displace a people from their homes.
They could even produce evidence using clips from our media. No need to try and find hidden documents secreted in caves. If Iran flew a drone to kill John McCain after his suggestion that we "bomb bomb bomb Iran", what do you think our response would be?
Jews have millennia of attested habitation there quite apart from anything written in the Bible,...
I think that's a bit disingenuous.
If the international community had offered the Jews some other place to settle in 1948, land of equal size, land whose current occupants were willing to happily vacate -- Jamaica, say. Or the Austrailan outback or the Florida panhandle -- the Jews would have rejected that offer. Utterly. Unequivocally. Without a doubt. Why? Because they have a 2500 year old book which says God promised the land of Palestine to them.
Think about that.
All of the hatred and strife. All of the innocent Israelis killed by suicide bombers, all of the innocent Palistinians killed by airstrikes, the Six Day war, the Yom Kippur war, Hezbolla, Hammas, Christian Jihad, the refugee camps, the US marines killed in Lebanon, the sailors killed on the Cole, the 3000 Americans killed on 9/11, ISIS, the rise of a nuclear amibitious Iran, all of it is because of a fucking fairy tale.
Golda Meir once said there won't be peace until the Palestians love their children more than they hate Israel. It seems to me there won't be peace until the Israelis hate misery more than they love nonsense.
I want to live in a world where Noam Chomsky gets all the media buzz in the run up to his candidacy.
Instead of living in real-life Idiocracy.
1) If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could easily acquire one, pret-a-porter from any one of their allies.
2) Were they to use said weapon in a first strike, they would be cease to exist as a country.
3) If they used it in retaliation to an invasion, it would be justified and therefore serve as a deterrent.
Ask yourself again, why would Iran want such a weapon, and why is Israel fighting so hard to stop them from acquiring one?
It's not that complicated folks.
That's the US interest in Pakistan. With a military relationship with the US, their risk of getting steamrolled by India is reduced, and they are more secure. Ideally, this leads to them both behaving more rationally, investing more in diplomacy, and making the threat of that regional WWIII variant less likely.
In the case of Iran, the threat is a little different. We want to prevent nuclear proliferation because of the risk of MAD breaking down, and the economic and security burden nuclear weapons place on a government. The problem isn't just Iran getting an atomic weapon. If they can't miniaturize it for a ballistic missile, they're not much of a threat. They can't let the weapon get into the hands of anyone who'll use it, atmospheric sampling will ID the fingerprint predicted for their weapon, and the result will be a submarine launched nuclear reprisal. So they have their nuclear weapons which can't do anything but protect them from a ground invasion and make their economy that much worse. But it also creates the security need in it's neighbors. Now Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al need nukes. That necessarily takes some of the most able citizens away from jobs that provide more economic benefit, and reduces those governments investment in economic development and basic security. The whole region gets poorer faster, and stays that way as long as they have the nuclear burden.
When people don't have those kinds of fundamental building blocks of a life worth living, things like the Arab Spring happen. And while there'll be the occasional Tunisia which looks like it's getting it's shit together, there is the other side too. Syria being the extreme potential downside.
Yeah, it's really crazy what went down at the end of the war. Especially with the firebombing of 67 Japanese cities before the 2 bombs (Also firebombing in Germany, etc.). Curtis LeMay said that if we lost the war all of our leaders would have been arrested, tried, and executed as war criminals. So what makes it moral if you win the war, but immoral if you lose the war? That's a small essay question I give my students, anyways.
If GOP think that Iran is unstable they should read a history book and figure out why it's so.
It's like cheating on your spouse. Once you do it, you're always paranoid about them cheating on you.
What about just good ol' American "We gun take dis land now cuz it look gud"?
What about good old every-fucking-body ever since the beginning of our species?
To the US? Small, to nil. To Israel? Mild.
Why? M.A.D. didn't suddenly stop being a compelling reason 'not' to go to war when the USSR fell apart. Iran can pester Israel via proxies, but can't win with that route. Until the Sunni/Shia divide is crossed (not happening any time soon), there's no great chance for a Pan-Arab or Pan-Islam alliance to come together to attack them.
They can stare and growl at each other, and occasionally toss nettles, and that's all.
When the bombs were dropped, there were two choices on the table. A) Drop the Bombs, kill a lot of people, and the war ends now b/c you scared the shit out of Japan. B) Invade Japan, lose 2 million US soldiers, and kill at least 10 million Japanese soldiers and citizens. So, which one was better? I'd go w/ option A if those were my choices.
You're onto something. These are T.E. Lawrence's thoughts on the 1916 Arab revolt against the Ottomans. It would be...
beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break up of the Islamic 'bloc' and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states [Sharif Hussein] would set up to succeed the Turks would be … harmless to ourselves … The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion.
And that they did.
I really don't understand why people say this. Are you suggesting the US should not try and prevent nuclear proliferation? I see this as being along the lines of suggesting Germany shouldn't try and prevent discrimination in other countries because of it's actions during WWII.
In a way, the experience gives the US a unique perspective on how easy it can be to justify using nuclear weapons. If anything, I feel the US should play up the fact that it's the only country to have used them and the repercussions of their use.
We also have our politicians constantly on tv saying bomb Iran, so we probably shouldn't be overly concerned with peaceful. They've been living under the threat of constant American involvement, after fending off an invasion from at the time an american supported dictator, who was attempting to exploit internal Iranian issues caused by, you guessed it, us. Hell we offered tons of support for the aggressor as soon as Iran managed to make progress. We were directly supporting their attackers in an incredibly brutal war, right after the revolution. Like honestly, why the hell shouldn't Iran hate us?
Iran is not our friend, and is not friendly towards us, and neither should they be. We support their enemies, we push a distinctly anti Iran agenda, we treat them like war mongers while we rush around the world bombing people.
Hell when they started to really win the war against their aggressors we made them stop. Not even any reparations. Of course the last country WE were attacked by had multiple nuclear weapons dropped on defenseless cities. So we're not big on practicing what we preach either.
The Iranian government are not good guys by any measure. They do terrible things (Iranian people are pretty cool). But so does our government, and we've done a hell of alot more to destroy world peace in the last few decades than they have, yet they're the terrible bad guys. Our buddies the Sauds are cutting heads off left and right, but the Iranian boogey man still haunts our dreams.
This is incorrect. Benjamin Netanyahu showed us an image of the bomb Iran has. It was an incredibly detailed image that proves 100% Iran has a nuclear weapon.
Actually, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives.
In order to end WWII in the Pacific, the U.S. military had been planning a land invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall. Conservative projections for the casualties involved ran into the millions.
Thankfully, Downfall never got out of the planning stages, because of the surrender provoked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This ended the war with, at most, 250,000 casualties. That's about 750,000 lives that weren't lost thanks to the bombings.
That isn't to say that it's not monstrous to use atomic weapons on civilians, but it's completely justified when it's actually the least horrible of the available options.
If Iran wanted a nuclear weapon, they could easily acquire one, pret-a-porter from any one of their allies.
Don't think its quite as simple as James Bond movies make it out to be. You would have to buy one, with nobody involved in the transaction leaking the information. You would then have to buy the radar equipment and launch devices to effectively use the weapon, again without anyone discovering. And if you literally had "1" it would somehow have to survive US/Israeli sabotage and airstrikes. Also, a single warhead or even a small group of warheads can be somewhat reliably defeated (the current state-of-the-art missile defense shields can be easily overwhelmed by a salvo but are somewhat reliable against individual missiles). Much different scenario if you can start building them yourself.
Israel resorts to violence at will. It persists in illegal settlement in occupied territory, some annexed, all in the face of international law and the U.N. Security Council. It has repeatedly carried out brutal attacks against Lebanon and the imprisoned people of Gaza, killing tens of thousands without pretext. Israel also refuses to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections. They continue to defy the international call for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region.
I see alot of comments which mistake geopolitics for politics. The former is the Big Boy game in which real decisions have real effects. The latter, which is Chomsky's specialty, is the lies politicians tell us in order to obtain the consent of the people to take the actions necessary to carry out the former. Chomsky's book 'Manufacturing Consent' is a de facto admission of this fact.
While what NC says is mostly true, he, and other academics, actors, commentators etc have the luxury of not having to take any actions, or, more to the point, take responsibility for those actions.
The salient facts in this matter are as follows:
Nukes are bad. The less nukes in the world, the better;
The countries that currently possess nukes (with one very important exception) are rational actors - they are not going to use those weapons unless under existential threat;
Those countries that have nukes face, or have faced, real existential threats (except Pakistan and India - that was Nationalistic stupidity) - that's why they have them;
The Middle East is only important because of oil, once it's gone, the rest of the world will pay as much attention to it as we do to sub-Saharan Africa;
Islam's 90 year civil war ended with victory for the Islamists over the moderates/secularists;
The current proxy war for control of the oil (and hence influence) is between Iran-led Shia Islam, and Saudi/GCC-led Sunni Islam (Side note: OBL's greatest victory was dragging America into this war to further radicalise both sides);
If Iran gets nukes this will have two effects: the Saudis will get nukes from Pakistan with all the potentially apocalyptic scenarios that that entails; and Iran will then be significantly less vulnerable to American pressure - this is why North Korea gets away with its batshit crazy antics and why, despite their ridiculously miniscule influence, we have to deal with them - nobody wants this (see point 1).
Now, many of you will be asking why it's okay for America to have nukes, invade other countries, support dictators etc. The simple answer is that, as far as empires go, The US Empire has been relatively benevolent. It has not been perfect, but ruling the world is like being the toughest kid in the schoolyard - sometimes you gotta do bad shit to prevent worse shit. Ask yourself this question: 'Would the world be a better place if the Ayatollahs' Iran was the ruling world empire?' Those of you pondering the answer should probably have a quick look at their internal human rights record, sponsorship of terrorism, holocaust denial etc.
So, to sum up, NC is right, Iran isn't a current existential threat to the US/Europe, but those who work in geopolitics have to consider alot of potential future scenarios. And, more importantly, unlike NC, they need to take responsibility for their words and actions.
I sincerely hope that the US foreign policy of the past 15 years can retrurn to Realpolitik after the nightmare of the Bush neocon experiment and the rudderless Obama years.
Always happy to discuss.
TL
R - NC is right, but being right isn't important in geopolitics.you can make a much stronger case against Israel, who have spied for, and stolen, nuclear secrets for decades, assembled several hundred nuclear weapons, refused to join the NPT, refused to allow inspections.
If there is a "clear and present danger" in the nuclear proliferation arena, it is Israel, and has been for years.
Calling Israel the threat to peace is simplistic and glosses over many key points.
Israel has a tendency, especially lately, to react strongly and harshly to any provocations, even small provocations. In that sense, if you think of Israel as having a "quick trigger", then they might be viewed as a threat to peace.
The problem with that viewpoint is it ignores that these are, almost without exception, reactions. The only thing they do (that people criticize) that is not directly reactive is continue to build settlements in disputed territories. To Israel's opposition, continuing to build those settlements (and, when relevant, destroying or displacing anything that may have been there beforehand) qualifies as unjustified provocations. But that ignores the greater historical setting - 1) Israel has been invaded multiple times without provocation in it's 67 year history; 2) several neighboring governmental leaders (and in some cases entire governing bodies) believe Israel has no right to exist and advocate its destruction; and 3) by it's original boundaries is/was an absurdly skinny country, and any populated area could be hit by a rocket/missile launched from within Gaza or the West Bank.
After one such invasion, Israel took the West Bank and Gaza, and kept them to provide buffer zones as protection against future invasions. And note that, claiming territory conquered during a war is normal throughout human history. Furthermore, they felt the need to widen their geographic limits, as one of many pieces of their strategy to defend themselves against attack - hence the disputed settlements. And it doesn't help Israel's perception that they have a very hawkish Prime Minister.
Then the added sensationalism of capitalist media really causes problems. Media company's need profits to continue, and they profit off ad sales (ie increased clicks/viewership/readership), so highlighting the sensational pieces of the stories and skipping the layers of complexity that completely reverse the significance of the story.
Some examples:
Israel gets criticized for bombing a a school or a hospital. However, especially in Gaza, militants intentionally select these locations as bases/headquarters, using the children or the sick as human shields, creating a win-win scenario. Either the militants stay alive and keep operating, or Israel gets slammed for blowing up a school. Israel gets criticized for blockading Gaza and not even allowing aide vessels into the country without inspections. But when Israel allowed an aide floatilla, it turned out to have included significant supplies of illegal weapons.
Quick readings of the headlines, or only fringe interest in the topic can easily paint Israel as the "bad guy", but a deeper look into the topic either turns that on its head entirely, or at least reveals a far, far murkier picture.
When we took saipan and okinowa thousands of japanese civilians committed suicide because of fear, the propaganda made them believe the americans would torture them. Thousands more died in the fighting either accidentally or from being pressed in to service. Between the two islands it is estimated that as many as 160,000 civilians lost their lives.
There was going to be a lot of death on the mainland no matter what. The nuke saved our soldiers, sailors and airmen from having to endure any further losses.
Oh - you mean the Iran which fought a war against Saddam which was essentially a US proxy attack against Iran? The same Iran which overthrew the brutal dictatorship of the Shah (a US client). The same Iran which hears US "statesmen" threaten Iran with attack on a regular basis? The same Iran which had a passenger plane shot out of the sky by trigger happy US military?
Golly - why would Iran be angry with the US?
There was a pretty sizable proportion of Jews that weren't convinced that Palestine was the best place for them. There was a movement claiming territory and buying up land there since the late 1800's, but it was hardly uniform among Jews around the world. But they weren't offered Bavaria, (as would have been most just), or land in Europe, or Russia, or the Americas.
So they took what they could get. But to say Jews, as a monolith, would have refused, is completely wrong.
The GOP village idiot Scott Walker has been screaming how he would bomb Iran the first day in office It is called playing to your base. The radical islam groups are the Koch brothers of the middle east. If you want to stay in power, you must openly hate the USA and the concept of Israel.
Edit: for fun here is anotherhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/02/scott-walker-ill-blow-up-any-iran-de...
and exactly the same case can be made for Iran, although I suspect that you won't accept or believe that.
That said, both Israel and US intelligence services have stated for years that Iran hasn't had a nuclear weapons program since at least 2003, making them much less of a risk as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. I realise that reality doesn't fit the current Israeli and US neo-con propaganda, but it has the benefit of actually being true, unlike that same propaganda.
It's also hyperbole
Jews have millennia of attested habitation there quite apart from anything written in the Bible, and their historical displacement by imperialist Europeans (i.e. Romans) is also a matter of history rather than myth.
War Crimes are one of those things that can only exist if you don't think about them too hard. I mean, it starts with the contradictory goal of making war civil.
Go away, 'batin'.
Now Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al need nukes.
I'm not convinced Saudi Arabia does not have them and Turkey hosts ours.
Not sure if this changes your point any.
Many commentors on this subreddit refuse to acknowledge that "Death to America" is a common rallying cry in Iran. Last time I linked a similar article, all of the replies said something along the lines of "well, Americans are no different towards Iran." Its pretty absurd.
Edit: The downvote brigade is real, instant negative karma score after posting this. Why are you trying to suppress other peoples views on a public and anonymous internet forum?
Netanyahu has been saying Iran is 1 or 2 years away from the bomb since as least '92. He's a fear monger and war monger to gain political favor and should not be taken seriously in regards to Iran.
Israel doesn't sponsor terrorism as Iran does. Israel doesn't sponsor radical Shia clerics that inflame sectarian violence in the Middle East. Iran is certainly a much greater contributor to instability in the Middle East.
they are the modern nuke
