1.08.2007

Atomic Israel

So how is it different when Israel raises the atomic threat, than when Iran does it?

Well, let's see. Iran has a history of being taken over by political nutballs and using extreme rhetoric against its adversaries that usually don't lead to anything.

Israel has a history of attacking with little or no warning and engaging in extreme military responses.

So when Israel, or someone with credibility, hints that Israel will use nuclear force to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential, the globe shudders. Especially when delivered through a media vehicle like Britain's The Sunday Times.

Quickly Israel has moved to deny any such idea. Click on the title to this post to see an article in The Australian.

But remember, the world of diplomacy is primarily one of words. Just the suggestion that Israel would attack Iran in this manner will have an effect. Maybe it will temper the Big Mouth In Tehran into worrying more about his own political base.

If that's the case, then it wouldn't be such an unproductive balloon.

5 comments:

The Lazy Iguana said...

I wrote about this as well.

But remember - Iran is NOT run by dummies. What they did was to make friends with China. Iran IS China's oil futures market.

So lets say that Israel attacks Iran, thus screwing with China's oil investments. Do you think China will just say "oh me so sorry for make friend with Iran"? I don't.

Why has Bush not laid out tougher speech against Iran?

China is a ball buster here. They can go toe to toe with any nation in a conventional war. Do they have nukes? Probably. They launched a space craft - this means they can make an ICBM.

And, they have the economy of the west in their hands. Should the goods stop flowing out of there, what will people shop for? What will Wal-Mart sell? The retail sector would collapse, and with it a lot of jobs. And not just low paying part time jobs. CEOs, CFOs, and entire floors of people in suits would be standing in line.

And who could last longer like that? The west, driven by consumerism, or China?

I fear Iran may be a lot safer than anyone wants to think about.

Fuzz said...

This iguana fella is probably right about Iran being safe. This BS about the US being the only world power is just that, BS.

Michael said...

I think that the main difference between an atomic Israel, and an atomic Iran, is that no one really believes that Israel will actually initiate an nuclear war.

There's been evidence of Israeli nukes for 40 years, but the Arab states didn't start trying to develop their own, openly, until Iran did.

During that time, Israel faced 2 existential crises (in 1967 and 1973), but never used nukes.

Iran, on the other hand, has been publicly announcing it's desire to kill all the Jews and destroy Israel for years now.

It seems to be a pretty simple equation.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Michael. Israel has a history of violent pre-emptive action. Ahmedinjad's widely disseminated statement was translated in a way that has been disputed. A more accurate translation is that he approved of wiping the current Israeli regime out, not Jews. Israel destroyed Lebanon, and is a major aggressor in the world evidenced by consistent UN statements condemning it, agreed upon by almost the entire world apart from the U.S. and Israel. Israel with the fourth most powerful military in the world and its track record of barbarism is much more dangerous to the world as a whole than Iran.

Michael said...

Anonymous:
How should Israel respond to aggression? In '67, the Arab nations were openly declaring their intention to wipe Israel out, and soak the sand in blood, before closing the Strait of Tiran (a legal act of war).

In '73, they attacked Israel without warning.

In '82, the PLO staged cross border raids from Lebanon, and Iraq was building a nuclear reactor specifically to develop bombs. In each case, the PLO and Iraq were declaring their intention to destroy Israel.

Ahmedinjad actually has said that he wants to kill all the Jews, as has his proxy, Hezbollah. The 4000 rockets fired into Israel last summer were not aimed the gov't; they target strictly civilian ares.

How should any country respond to this?

As for the UN, yes, it has a history of condemning Israel to the exclusion of all else. Compare the numbers: How many UN resolutions are there on Israel, and how many Darfur, or Kosovo, or Tibet, or southern Thailand?

There is one more point: It has been generally agreed for 40 years that Israel has nuclear weapons, and yet Israel's enemies never really made a big case of it. They knew that Israel wouldn't strike first with nukes.

Yet when Iran begins to develop such weapons, the Arab nations start getting panicky.

It's an interesting set of reactions.