This is the best analysis of the lot. I wish you were wrong …but you aren’t.

Mark Buehner says:
Hezbollah would and probably Hamas, but no states I think. Part of Israel’s problem is that if Iran gets the bomb and puts those terrorists group under some sort of nuclear umbrella, they would have virtually free reign to shower Israel with rockets. And thats probably the least bad scenario for Israel. Iran brazenly supports international terrorism now, imagine how they will behave when immune from reprisal.

Quote

October 26, 2009, 3:20 pm

In your attempt at analogy you failed to understand that owning/possessing a gun IS NOT necessarily that same as pointing the gun.

Once a nation (or any other group) has a WMD and missiles (or equivalent) to deliver it, anybody within range of those missiles is in the same situation. Either they strike first, or they are dead. That is certainly enough to justify Israel striking first, especially since Iran and its president have repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel.

Forget about the UN and the concept of international law. Neither has any teeth, or can ever have them, in the area of warfare, because when you come down to it, the only way to punish any nation for violating UN rules or international law is to wage war against them.

Besides, the UN’s professed ideals have always been a joke. The UN is a club formed by and for the winners of WW2, for the purpose of preserving the results of that war, just like the League of Nations (formed after WW1) and the Congress of Vienna (after Waterloo). Each of those became irrelevant and dissolved in the next major war, and I expect WW3 any month now. I just hope it doesn’t come during Obama’s presidency, because he is too stupid to win it even with the US behind him.

PLR: The fact that Ahmadinejad has promised to blow up Israel…

Not a fact.

Pardon my hyperbole, what he actually said was:

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury”

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world, … The World without Zionism”

“As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map”

“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”

“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”

Oren: But therein lies the heart of the matter — Iran has no desire to see Hizbollah “promoted” to a status where they might exercise power independently or even against Iranian interests (for instance, Iran might want a period of calm for diplomatic reasons). That is to say, in real chess, the Queen is careful never to promote any of her pawns lest they start having designs of their own.

In real chess, none of the pieces — the pawn, the queen or even the king — has a mind of its own. Is it beyond your imagination that Iran could use the bomb to protect Hizbollah while retaining control over when and how? The US certainly used its nukes to protect South Korea without turning South Korea into a nuclear power. Or that Iran might make bombs available to Hizbollah in way that retains control over their use, e.g. by assigning Iranian agents, engineers or soldiers who had sole access to the necessary launch codes, arming codes or other technology? IMHO you are too blithely dismissing or minimizing the risk.

Again, I see risks in attacking and in not attacking, but it seems to me a huge mistake to trust Iran to neither use the bomb nor strategically threaten to.

My understanding is that signatories to the NNP (or NPT) are to report, a number of weeks ahead, before a site is to be fitted with equipment. A site can be built in secret but, if the site will enrich uranium, the site must be disclosed BEFORE equipment is installed. Building itself does not require disclosure.

Am I wrong?

It signed a multilateral treaty by which it ceded certain, related portions of its sovereign authority.

And it can withdraw from the treaty. No government of a sovereign nation may bind future governments to such an obligation. It’s contrary to the power of the future-sovereign.

especially if the pawns are being used to guard a critical square, or as part of a combined attack on the king or a major piece, or if the pawn can be promoted.

But therein lies the heart of the matter — Iran has no desire to see Hizbollah “promoted” to a status where they might exercise power independently or even against Iranian interests (for instance, Iran might want a period of calm for diplomatic reasons). That is to say, in real chess, the Queen is careful never to promote any of her pawns lest they start having designs of their own.

Consider, for instance, the militants in Pakistan that the ISI nurtured as a counterbalance to Indian power. Now the Pakistani Army has to clean house because they decided to stop playing by the ISI’s rules.

That is absolutely a reasonable read on what Iran is doing. For the useful idiots of the world.

I predict no action against Iran will be taken unless Israel is willing to suffer economic collapse as a result or unless the main trading partners in the EU give a green light (UK, Norway, and Germany, iirc).

Not straw-man nonsense, but rather a burden of proof issue. Under the NPT, Iran has the burden to demonstrate that it’s use of enrichment is not for weapons purposes.

Presumably this week’s IAEA inspections are part of that process.

It is very secretive about the enrichment purpose, and the discovery of previously undisclosed sites makes even their broad statements questionable.

All countries are secretive. The “discovery” occurred, as far as the general public is concerned, because Iran listed the site in its own report.

The fact that Ahmadinejad has promised to blow up Israel…

Not a fact.

and (according to a U.S. Government Approved News Service) refused to rule out pursuing nuclear weapons…

… although the Supreme Leader has ruled them out …

means Iran is not satisfying their requirements under the NPT.

Not true. It signals a concern about future compliance.

JaimeInTexas: This question is straw-man nonsense?
BTW, I do not care that Israel has “the bomb” nor I care if Iran does too.

Not straw-man nonsense, but rather a burden of proof issue. Under the NPT, Iran has the burden to demonstrate that it’s use of enrichment is not for weapons purposes. It is very secretive about the enrichment purpose, and the discovery of previously undisclosed sites makes even their broad statements questionable. The fact that Ahmadinejad has promised to blow up Israel and (according to a U.S. Government Approved News Service) refused to rule out pursuing nuclear weapons means Iran is not satisfying their requirements under the NPT.

TheBadness: Ya know, I don’t normally agree with your comments, egd — but this is spot on. Iran doesn’t have “rights;” it has reserved attributes of sovereign authority. It signed a multilateral treaty by which it ceded certain, related portions of its sovereign authority.

I’m glad to see you’ve come to see the error of your ways :D

But the NPT includes a reservation of the right to use nuclear energy for power generation (although not a “right” in the same sense as Jaime used it), so the use of nuclear technology is not ceded by the treaty.

The reason only you are outraged is because only you seem to flaunt your ignorance.

He’s not really flaunting it, he only seems to? He sure fooled me. (Sorry, couldn’t resist, and I agree thoroughly with your observation.)

PLR, however, does not. He is very free with making unsubstantiated charges of falsehood and not much on backing them up. I tend to agree with BobDoyle where this particular troll is concerned.

You don’t usually give away the queen to save a few pawns.

I’m not much of a chess player but the queen can be most effective in deterring the removal of pawns, especially if the pawns are being used to guard a critical square, or as part of a combined attack on the king or a major piece, or if the pawn can be promoted.

Ya know, I don’t normally agree with your comments, egd – but this is spot on. Iran doesn’t have “rights;” it has reserved attributes of sovereign authority. It signed a multilateral treaty by which it ceded certain, related portions of its sovereign authority.

“What is the proof that Iran is diverting enriched uranium for nuclear weapons?”

Perhaps Yankev has the answer.

And to BobDoyle, I believe my observation about Mr. Posner was quite civil, as are most of my other observations. I have perceived only a small number of recurring visitors here (fewer than 10, none of them moderators) who regularly disseminate misinformation, and who may mistake my indifference to civility as active hostility.

This question is straw-man nonsense?

BTW, I do not care that Israel has “the bomb” nor I care if Iran does too.

Alexia:
BUt they have the right to enrich uranium for energy IIRC.Israel doesn’t even officially have nuclear weapons. The ones they do have were built from plans stolen from America.Why no outrage?

Because we’re not in grammar school, where everybody gets to play with the toys equally because we’re all equally special. Israel was attacked by every one of its neighbors on the day of its founding, fought them twice more in twenty years, and still isn’t recognized by many of them who funnel arms and explosives to terrorists to blow up coffee houses. Iran being the primary on that. Iran, on the other hand, is unquestionably the worlds foremost funder and supporter of international terrorism, with a highly illiberal government that works hand in glove with some of the most murderous terrorists in the world. Context matters.

JaimeInTexas: Does Iran, Israel or any other country have the right to nuclear weapons?
If no, is our’s, China’s, Russia’s, etc nuclear weapons capability illegitimate?

Does Iran, etc have the right to peaceful nuclear power?

What is the proof that Iran is diverting enriched uranium for nuclear weapons?

Iran is a signatory to the NNP, Israel is not.

Are there really such things as “rights” among sovereign nations? I don’t think so. There are only those actions that are acceptable or unacceptable to the rest of the international community.

If there are sovereign nation rights, what are some clear-cut examples? How are those enforced, if not through the voluntary acts of other nations?

Iran can seek nuclear weapons if it is willing to accept the consequences. Israel can hamper Iran’s nuclear ambitions, if it is willing to accept the consequences.

Alexia:
BUt they have the right to enrich uranium for energy IIRC.Israel doesn’t even officially have nuclear weapons. The ones they do have were built from plans stolen from America.Why no outrage?

Actually, its not exactly secret that Israel’s nukes were made with the assistance of the french, not the americans. The reason only you are outraged is because only you seem to flaunt your ignorance. (which seems to be fairly common amongst critics of Israel these days…)

MCR: JaimeInTexas:What right to nuclear weapons exists exists as a right to self-defense.Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty give up some of that right, including the right to develop nuclear weapons.As you point out, Iran is a signatory; not an exemplary signatory by any means, but a signatory nonetheless.The rest of your comment is straw-man nonsense.

BUt they have the right to enrich uranium for energy IIRC.

Israel doesn’t even officially have nuclear weapons. The ones they do have were built from plans stolen from America. Why no outrage?

And we’re gonna lecture Israel.

I do not propose to lecture Israel. I also wonder about the wisdom of funding Israel, and especially about the value of being Israel’s blood-and-treasure guarantor if it bites off more than it can chew (in part because providing that guarantee might generate substantial moral hazard).

Why doesn’t Israel just petition these US for annexation?

Not a bad idea, but offering every Israeli a place in the southwest or in West Virgina seems preferable.

The rest of your comment is straw-man nonsense.

Hezbollah would and probably Hamas, but no states I think. Part of Israel’s problem is that if Iran gets the bomb and puts those terrorists group under some sort of nuclear umbrella, they would have virtually free reign to shower Israel with rockets.

Can you explain how they would be any more protected than right now?

You don’t usually give away the queen to save a few pawns.

Does Iran, etc have the right to peaceful nuclear power?

What is the proof that Iran is diverting enriched uranium for nuclear weapons?

Iran is a signatory to the NNP, Israel is not.

Sarcasm aside, an Israeli decision to attack Iran won’t be made in a vacuum. Israel will get substantial help from the US, in the form of transit rights over Iraq, intelligence, and weapons. And rightly or wrongly, the US will be held equally responsible for the results, and no doubt will suffer the consequences as well.

PLR: Posner, having left his cheerleading outfit at home, may not be invited back to AEI.Yankev would likely be welcome in that pit of vipers, however, with his reiterations of various lies (not all of them noble IMO).

PLR, who or what is AEI? And now that you have called me a liar, care to back it up?