So say documents leaked by Wikileaks. This shouldn’t be very surprising, but over the last several years I’ve seen many, many commentators (update: as has Jeffrey Goldberg) claiming that the only parties plugging for U.S. military action against Iran are Israel and its American “Likudnik” supporters. [Update: Omri Ceren provides some examples of "experts" who claimed that the Saudis opposed U.S. military action against Iran. For examples of focus on the "Israel lobby" with no mention of Arab support, see Stephen Walt and Joe Klein. Andrew Sullivan, however, suggests that it's "preposterous" to think that such people exist. It would be nice if they were actually just products of Jeffrey Goldberg's Zionist imagination, but no such luck.] Don’t expect many mea culpas, either.
In other Wikileaks news, Iran used the services of the Iranian Red Crescent, including Red Crescent ambulances, to smuggle men and weapons into Lebanon during the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006. Expect no condemnatory press releases from Human Rights Watch.
UPDATE: It’s quite a blow to conspiracy theorists, is it not, that the combined weight of two of their favor bogeymen, “the Zionists” and “the Arabs” haven’t been able to get the U.S. to take military action against Iran.
rpt says:
Is this supposed to be good news? Now that we have exceeded the Soviet Union’s tenure in Afghanistan, and are contemplating a new war in Yemen, while facing the wacky North Koreans (thanks for nothing John Belton), even more countries want us to commence a new war paid for by the shrinking middle class?
November 28, 2010, 7:44 pmBill Poser says:
Taking out the Iranian nuclear installations would not necessarily start a long-lasting war with Iran. In any case, the point is not so much that the Saudis and other Arabs favor removing Iran’s nuclear capability as that we have here yet more clear evidence that the anti-Israel pundits have no idea what they are talking about.
November 28, 2010, 7:54 pmYeargh says:
Well, they already got us to toss Saddam out, so why not clean up the rest of Persia for our oil-y friends?
November 28, 2010, 7:54 pmDavid Bernstein says:
It’s presented by me as neither good news nor bad news, but as “news” that should make some readers think twice about their sources for information on Middle East politics.
November 28, 2010, 7:54 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a military?
November 28, 2010, 7:58 pmStrict says:
I’m not sure why you are repeating your absurd claim that Human Rights Watch does not criticize Iran. It certainly does. Their webpage has dozens of critical reports specifically on the country of Iran. Moreover, HRW has published a massive report on Hezbollah rocket attacks during that 2006 war. The report accused Iran of being a “longtime supporter and reported arms supplier to Hezbollah,” and urged the government of Iran to cease supplying both weapons and intelligence to Hezbollah.
Can you name many (or even any) of the “many, many commentators” who claim that the ONLY parties agitating for action against Iran are Israel and American Likudniks? It might indeed be the case that some people have made that claim – I just have never seen it!
November 28, 2010, 8:11 pmKanageloa says:
Taking out Iran’s nuclear capability would not mean starting a war. What is Iran going to do for a response? Invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan? With the massive destruction caused by a nuclear weapon and continued radiation for years, a preemptive hit looks to be the lesser of two evils. In war, political correctness will get you killed.
November 28, 2010, 8:22 pmStrict says:
“Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a military?”
Sure they do. But why fight when you can have America or Israel do the fighting? Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia agreed with Israel to let Israeli air force use Saudi airspace to attack Iran. Earlier this year, the UAE openly declared its desire for an attack on Iran.
It’s no secret that several Arab governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya) and Sunni extremist groups (e.g. Fatah al Islam, Fatah, Al Qaeda) have called for attacks on Iran. Everyone knows who Tony Blair is; he was an anti-Iran agitator and no one would claim he’s an Israeli or American Likudnik.
I’m puzzled why this Bernstein thinks this leak is somehow damning evidence against HRW or “should make readers think twice” about trusting HRW for information on the Middle East.
November 28, 2010, 8:27 pmN.S. Grey says:
“Expect no condemnatory press releases from Human Rights Watch.”
I find such snide remarks take away from your point. It makes you look like you are so biased against HRW (your prior post make this clear) whether rightly or wrongly, to call into question the veracity of the arguments you make. That is, you sound like a child and not a legal scholar.
November 28, 2010, 8:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
I didn’t make that claim, I said that HRW won’t issue any press releases criticizing Iran for using the IRC for military purposes. Let’s see if I’m wrong.
November 28, 2010, 8:36 pmDavid Bernstein says:
No, I’m talking about people like Joe Klein. HRW goes without saying, but not because of this.
November 28, 2010, 8:37 pmElemenope says:
Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a military?
Compared to Iran? No.
November 28, 2010, 8:41 pm“Saudis and Other Arab States Want US to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Program” and related posts | Sabale says:
[...] from : Top Stories – Google Blog Search stLight.options({ publisher:'wp.e82a159a-cc89-4934-a06f-e4aa4fa0ffda' }); [...]
November 28, 2010, 9:02 pmBaseballhead says:
I do think it’s rather funny that Bernstein would, on one hand, use the bounty provided by the new Wikileaks leaks as evidence to make a point while, on the other hand, use the new Wikileaks to take a shot at the Obama Administration.
Ah, Wikileaks. Sure, they may have placed many lives in danger, but since the leaks are out, let’s roll around naked in them.
November 28, 2010, 9:20 pmStrict says:
“No, I’m talking about people like Joe Klein.”
Again, I’m puzzled. Joe Klein is exactly the type of person who claims that non-Israeli and non-American powers also want attacks on Iran.
Joe Klein wrote an article called “An Attack on Iran: Back on the Table.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2003921,00.html
Klein says this:
“One other factor has brought the military option to a low boil: Iran’s Sunni neighbors really want the U.S. to do it. When United Arab Emirates Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba said on July 6 that he favored a military strike against Iran despite the economic and military consequences to his country, he was reflecting an increasingly adamant attitude in the region. Senior American officials who travel to the Gulf frequently say the Saudis, in particular, raise the issue with surprising ardor.”
So far you have used these leaks to make bizarre attacks on Joe Klein and Kenneth Roth’s organization. I’m wondering which Jewish liberal you’ll try to attack next – will it be Greenwald, or maybe Soros?
November 28, 2010, 9:35 pmBrett says:
It’s actually more of a divide. If you look through the leaked cables on the main site, the Saudi royals are pretty gung-ho on the “You need to deal with Iran” issue. But other actors, like the Saudi Foreign Ministry? Not so much.
November 28, 2010, 9:53 pmDavid Bernstein says:
That’s a recent innovation in Klein’s thinking then.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/05/06/israels-nukes/#comments
“the constant plumping for war against Iran by Likudniks in Israel and the U.S. makes the case for a nuclear capability dire and immediate from Iran’s point of view.”
I certainly don’t need Wikileaks for appropriately criticizing Klein
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22joe+klein%22+bernstein+volokh&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a or HRW. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22human+right+watch%22+bernstein+volokh&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
But it’s interesting that you seem to think I should refrain from criticizing Klein because he’s Jewish, or HRW because it’s leader is Jewish. I’m sure you’re aware that a very high % of left-wing intellectuals in the U.S. are Jewish, shall I refrain from criticizing any of them? Maybe when I write about the Supreme Court, I should limit my criticism of the Court’s liberal to Justice Sotomayor.
November 28, 2010, 9:59 pmStrict says:
Brett,
I don’t follow. The Foreign Ministry is run by Saudi royals. The Foreign Minister is a member of the royal family.
The head of the royal family, the King, has the final say on foreign policy matters. Not some ministry under him.
November 28, 2010, 10:00 pmDavid Bernstein says:
More Joe: http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2008/06/27/1000073/joe-klein-plays-the-dual-loyalty-card
November 28, 2010, 10:03 pmStrict says:
“But it’s interesting that you seem to think I should refrain from criticizing Klein because he’s Jewish, or HRW because it’s leader is Jewish”
? I don’t think anything of the sort.
David, it’s pretty obvious there are powers in Israel and US that want an attack on Iran. Klein pointed out the obvious.
You, however, falsely claimed that Klein is among those who claim that ONLY Israel and US agitate for an attack on Iran. Your claim is simply false. Showing me evidence that Klein said Israel wants an attack on Iran is NOT the same as evidence that Klein said ONLY Israel (and its American supporters) wants an attack on Iran.
You said this:”I’ve seen many, many commentators claiming that the only parties plugging for U.S. military action against Iran are Israel and its American “Likudnik” supporters.”
Which commentators I ask? Can you name some? You say Klein – who says exactly the opposite of what you attribute to him.
So again, which commentators? Again, I don’t doubt there are some who made this claim – I just haven’t seen any! And still haven’t.
November 28, 2010, 10:06 pmStrict says:
Klein said there are Jewish neoconservatives who agitated for an attack on Iran.
OK, so?
He did not – as you are saying here – claim that the ONLY parties plugging for US military action are Israel and American Likudniks.
November 28, 2010, 10:10 pmDavid Bernstein says:
But he didn’t mention Arab forces, either. And if you add the Arabs in, it starts to look like preventing Iran from getting nukes is more of a matter of regional stability of interest to a broad range of U.S. allies in the MidEast, and not some special pleading by Jewish/”Likudnik” friends of Israel, which is how Klein has portrayed the issue for years, though the recent post you found suggests that he has recently changed his tune a bit.
November 28, 2010, 10:16 pmCornellian says:
If Saudi Arabia wants to bomb Iran, they can bloody well do it themselves. The US military is not the personal bodyguard of the Saudi royal family.
November 28, 2010, 10:31 pmStrict says:
“I said that HRW won’t issue any press releases criticizing Iran for using the IRC for military purposes. Let’s see if I’m wrong.”
HRW’s report on Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israeli civilians cited this LA Times article:
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-04-26/news/mn-63095_1_arms-shipments
The article is about the US slamming Iran for supplying Hezbollah with arms under the guise of “humanitarian aid.” HRW adopts the view that the so-called humanitarian aid was really arms shipments. Neither the article nor HRW’s report mentions the IRC by name, but the IRC is well known as THE humanitarian wing of the Iranian government and was obviously the culprit for arms supplying to Hezbollah described in the article.
I don’t know if HRW will re-condemn Iran for shipping arms under the guise of humanitarian aid. You are sure they aren’t, but you don’t give any support for why. If HRW does re-condemn Iran for this, what will you do?
November 28, 2010, 11:00 pmTGGP says:
Saudi Arabia is #9 with over 39 billion dollars. Iran is 24 with over 9 billion. Saudi Arabia’s military does seem to be an excuse for royals to play with expensive toys rather than actual military purposes. Iran did actually fight a war with Iraq back in the day. Just from looking that up on wikipedia I discovered there is an actual combat operation the Saudis have undertaken.
November 28, 2010, 11:08 pmDavid Bernstein says:
1996 was before the current crew was in charge of HRW’s Middle East Division.
November 28, 2010, 11:15 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Multiple thread winner.
November 28, 2010, 11:21 pmStrict says:
“1996 was before the current crew was in charge of HRW’s Middle East Division.”
? Huh?
The HRW report on Hezbollah rocket attacks was published on August 28, 2007.
This 2007 report cited the 1996 article (which said the US suspects Iran of sending arms in the guise of humanitarian aid) in reaching its determination that Iran is an arms supplier to Hezbollah.
November 28, 2010, 11:24 pmJJ says:
I’m sorry, but where exactly in the article is the US slamming Iran for supplying Hezbollah with arms under the guise of “humanitarian aid.” ? I don’t see it.
November 28, 2010, 11:28 pmStrict says:
jj,
The article says:
1. “The Clinton administration denounced Iran on Thursday for escalating arms shipments to Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon”
2. “Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif called the report of the weapons shipments “a baseless allegation. We have increased our humanitarian aid to Lebanon after the recent Israeli aggression because of the increasing need of people for assistance and because they have been displaced.”
So Iran told the world it was sending in humanitarian aid. The US suspected it was actually weapons. HRW adopted the view of the US and, in a report about Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israeli citizens, criticized Iran for supplying weapons.
November 28, 2010, 11:37 pmDavid Bernstein says:
My bad, I misread your post.
November 28, 2010, 11:40 pmJJ says:
You are conflating 2 completely different things. The 1996 article is about the US condemning Iran for supplying weapons to Hezbollah, and Iran denying it, saying it is just sending humanitarian aid. This is run of the mill story about real-politik – nation A supplies arms to group B, while denying it, and being criticized for it by nation C. In contrast, the recent wikileaks documents is about nation A using ambulances to illegally smuggle weapons and military personnel – which is a war crime under the Geneva conventions. Where is the HRW condemnation of this war crime?
November 28, 2010, 11:50 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Beyond that, I can’t say I’m inclined to try to find HRW’s “massive report,” or see exactly how it used the LA Times article. Sarah Leah Whitson has made it abundantly clear (because she said so in public) that the war was “Israel’s war”. She’s also made it clear that she thinks that Hezbollah’s h.r. abuses are bush league stuff compared to Israel’s, and HRW itself makes up stuff about Israel, as I’ve documented before, including in ways that exonerate Hezbollah, as when HRW reported that Israel killed a bunch of civilians in a Lebanese town, even though several major media outlets discovered that they were all Hezbollah. But I’ve blogged all this before…
You said that you don’t know if HRW will “recondemn” Iran for using the IRC to ship weapons to Hezbollah, a war crime. Can you provide us with the original language of the “condemnation?”
November 28, 2010, 11:53 pmBill Poser says:
With regard to “the Zionists” and “the Arabs”, even if they happen to agree on something, their cooties have opposite charge and cancel each other out. :)
November 28, 2010, 11:58 pmKen Arromdee says:
This is lousy reasoning, for the same reason that “you’re a libertarian, so why do you accept tax-funded government services” is lousy reasoning.
Normally a claim that a particular activity is bad is not a claim that it is 100% bad, but rather that its bad effects outweigh its good effects. In this type of situation you can opt out of the good effects but you can’t opt out of the bad effects. Under these circumstances, taking advantage of the good effects is not hypocrisy, nor does it indicate you believe the activity is not bad overall. Hypocrisy would be if you accepted the whole package despite professing a belief that the whole package is bad–not if you accept a good part of a package with an overall bad effect when you have no power to reject the bad part.
Of course, explaining this takes longer than a sound bite.
November 29, 2010, 12:04 amHm says:
If they want it done so bad, let them do it themselves! Israel has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has a well-financed army. let them attack Iran.
November 29, 2010, 12:06 amBernadette Paolo says:
TERRIBLE IDEA. This will only cause more war!
November 29, 2010, 12:17 amLinn says:
Since American had sufficient experience for fighting with Iraq. You may have more chance to win the battle . But there’s not everything can be solved out by war, so think twice before decision.
November 29, 2010, 12:49 amDilan Esper says:
According to Wikileaks, the Saudis are also still funding Al Qaeda.
Since, unlike the imagined threat of Iran nuking Israel, Al Qaeda actually threatens AMERICANS, I’m much more concerned about THAT than I am with whatever Iran wants to do.
November 29, 2010, 1:05 amGood says:
then you agree we shouldn’t blindly support Israel and pursue a more balanced policy in the region, especially considering we now know the balance of power implications given all the arab states aren’t acting in unison against the “Zionist entity”
November 29, 2010, 3:34 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Let’s see:
November 29, 2010, 5:29 am(1) Leftists (and many paleoconservatives) complain that hostility towards an Iranian nuclear program is really driven by Israel (and, of course, the Israel Lobby).
(2) Wikileaks releases information showing that in fact Arab countries in the Gulf are at least as fervent as Israel is about the issue.
(3) DB points this out.
(4) Dilan manages to completely miss points (2) and (3), and claims that it’s all about Israel. (Except, bizarrely, he manages to argue that really Iran isn’t a threat to Israel either.)
Ariel says:
It’s fascinating that some people here don’t understand the notion of arguing by omission. If I know (which is probably generous, here) that there are two groups arguing for something, it significantly alters the mix of information to discuss only one of them. For example, imagine if Obamacare was backed by the AMA and Moochers’R'Us (a fictitious organization), and an ideologically similar grouping only discussed the AMA’s backing of Obamacare and not MRU’s. Might not some people think that that choice was ideologically driven? Likewise, here, certain people who always want to keep Israel front-and-center in all discussions related to the Middle East are focused on this one group and only this one group. Just as you can lie by actively lying, you can also lie by omission, at least if any of you believe in the securities laws of this country. (As mentioned above, this is taking the generous assumption these folks are lying by omission.)
November 29, 2010, 9:41 amDilan Esper says:
I have never denied that many Sunni countries would love to see Iran bombed.
My objection is that doing so harms MY country’s interests. As I said, if there is an oil rich nation we shoud rein in, it is Saudi Arabia.
In any event, when your side stops quoting the “wipe Israel off the map” comment, I’ll stop believing you are a liar.
November 29, 2010, 9:56 amAriel says:
That’s quite a standard – a whole “side” (however defined) has to stop quoting a comment for you stop believing one person (presumably who you view to be on that side) is a liar. I wonder how others would fare under that standard.
And, since you seem so very confident that Ahmadinejad didn’t say that, would you be so kind as to source your belief?
November 29, 2010, 10:15 am“Wikileaks: Arab World Agrees With Israel–Iran Is More Urgent Than A Palestinian State” and related posts | Sabale says:
[...] Saudis and Other Arab States Want US to Attack Iran's Nuclear Program - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
November 29, 2010, 11:10 amkiwi dave says:
And, since you seem so very confident that Ahmadinejad didn’t say that, would you be so kind as to source your belief?
Why, it’s Dilan’s encyclopedic knowledge of the nuances of Persian idiom, of which he has a better mastery than the Islamic Republic News Agency which, according to Wiki, translated “بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود” as “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
November 29, 2010, 11:24 amFausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Wikileaks: The Middle East, part 1 says:
[...] yes, It’s quite a blow to conspiracy theorists, is it not, that the combined weight of two of their [...]
November 29, 2010, 11:47 amManju says:
Cloudy ones too.
November 29, 2010, 12:44 pmJaimeInTexas says:
History has ended … who knew?
November 29, 2010, 1:15 pmThis is Just The Beginning!!! « Vanache Was Here says:
[...] “Saudis and Other Arab States Want US to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Program” and relate… (volokh.com) [...]
November 29, 2010, 2:04 pmDilan Esper says:
Did I say Ahmadinejad didn’t say that?
If you must know, my position is this: I don’t think it matters. Iran (1) doesn’t actually intend to wipe Israel off the map, (2) couldn’t if it tried, and (3) even if it succeeded in doing so, that wouldn’t mean that we should stop them if it would threaten American lives to do so.
But none of those things depend on any claim about Farsi translation. I am quite confident that he actually said what is claimed. I just think American foreign policy is about protecting Americans and that means we should deal with Iran and punish countries in the region such as the Saudis who actually fund anti-AMERICAN terrorists.
November 29, 2010, 2:20 pmAriel says:
I suppose you didn’t explicitly say it, but you pretty clearly implied it. You wrote when your side stops saying x, I’ll stop saying you’re a liar. The ordinary reading of that is that you believe that x is a lie. Most people don’t say that the other side is lying in the same sentence as they are discussing something the other side says is true. Most people use one sentence to convey one idea. I suspect that you know this and that you made a mistake – that’s no problem, but it’s also OK to admit it, instead of trying to do a lawyerly dance and try to avoid what’s right in front of us all.
It may not surprise you that I disagree, apart from on the idea of punishing the Saudi entity.
Among other revelations in Wikileaks I (I think – I’m losing track of which leak was when), was clear evidence that Iran had provided bomb-making materials to kill Americans in Iraq as well as sending troops over to do the dirty work. That does mean that even by your standard of what hurts AMERICANS, Iran should rank right up there in the list, perhaps having contributed to more AMERICAN casualties (if not fatalities) than any other state or non-state actor in the last decade.
If Iran is attacking AMERICANS (both directly and directly), and Iran is also attacking Israel (through its Hezb’Allah and Hamas proxies, inter alia), would it not be natural for us to work together? Do countries sometimes cooperate when they have common foes? If we are working together with another country, does that mean it might threaten AMERICAN lives, and that would be OK? Or should be retreat to fortress America and hope the rest of the world leaves us alone?
November 29, 2010, 3:57 pmPeter says:
Once again I can hope somebody takes the classification authorities to court for overclassifiying information to avoid embarrassment which is strictly prohibited by law.
Every time there is a leak I here from the gov’ment that it caused serious damage to our national security (the criteria for a SECRET classification) but once again years later I have yet once to see this damage. Even when I read the still classified internal reports which deal with the damage control aspects of a leak I still don’t see any actual damage.
One day folk will learn to just discount the PAO/PR and remember nearly all information outside short-term less than one month tactical or targeting information is classified solely to avoid oversight.
November 29, 2010, 4:50 pmAndrew L says:
“I just think American foreign policy is about protecting Americans and that means we should deal with Iran and punish countries in the region such as the Saudis who actually fund anti-AMERICAN terrorists.”
Fair enough. But I don’t think your position precludes supporting action against Iran, or some sort of scenario where it can be determined that helping Israel is also helping ourselves. All you seem to want is that this all be taken into account within the context of our primary concern of protecting American interests, which could (and probably should) include reigning in the Saudis.
I can get on board with that.
November 29, 2010, 8:31 pmDilan Esper says:
I suppose you didn’t explicitly say it, but you pretty clearly implied it. You wrote when your side stops saying x, I’ll stop saying you’re a liar. The ordinary reading of that is that you believe that x is a lie.
You missed the point. I was responding to DMN’s risible, dishonest, and intellectually atrocious post claiming that I was making the Iran issue all about Israel. My point was every time Iran is brought up, ADVOCATES of bombing make it all about Israel by bringing up that stupid quote. So I was saying that DMN was being completely dishonest, accusing me of making it all about Israel when in fact HIS side was doing that.
Among other revelations in Wikileaks I (I think — I’m losing track of which leak was when), was clear evidence that Iran had provided bomb-making materials to kill Americans in Iraq as well as sending troops over to do the dirty work.
While it is far from a good thing that Iran is funding combatants in Iraq’s civil strife, there is no way that is not going to happen due to the fact that Iraq is next door and has a huge Shiite population. The United States, on the other hand, should get out of there. If we did, we might have more leverage to stop Iran from building nukes, by the way (because those nukes are really about protecting the country from American invasion).
If Iran is attacking AMERICANS (both directly and directly), and Iran is also attacking Israel (through its Hezb’Allah and Hamas proxies, inter alia), would it not be natural for us to work together?
That’s second grade logic. If a reduction in Iran’s and Saudi Arabia’s attacks on Americans can be achieved by siding against Israel in its desire not to negotiate with the Palestinians, that results in a better solution than making war against everyone and increasing terrorist attacks against American citizens.
EDIT: All that said, I do agree with Andrew L that if we can take efforts to reduce the likelihood of Iran gaining nuclear weapons that ARE NOT likely to compromise American security, those efforts are a good idea and should be pursued. And I also agree with everyone (I think) that we really need to do more to punish the Saudis for funding anti-American terrorist groups.
November 30, 2010, 1:14 amAriel says:
Perhaps I’m still in second grade. If one party (A) is attacking two parties (B and C), it’s “second grade logic” for B and C to work together to restrain A? Perhaps I’m too simple minded, but that seems like common sense. Logic has nothing to do with it.
Notwithstanding the fact that you think we should get out of there (and perhaps we should), AMERICANS are being killed by IRANIANS. You purport to believe that AMERICA should act in ways that reduce the endangerment of AMERICANS. Does this philosophy end when you believe that Americans have no business being there? Or do you believe that we should defend ourselves, even if arguably we shouldn’t be in a particular place?
To me, it’s not even a close question. If you honestly believe that American foreign policy should be about protecting AMERICANS (full stop), that should be the case even if we’re in a place we shouldn’t be.
November 30, 2010, 9:59 amAndrew L says:
Dilan:
Bottom line is that I agree with you. I have, however, been thinking about this and I want to see if I can take this a bit further. Feel free to disagree. Here goes:
While mindful that our primary concern must be the preservation of American interests and provision for American security, I think that, all things being equal, I would ALSO like to support a country like Israel that – for all its many flaws – is a democracy that seems to genuinely want to continue in that fashion, and is also smack in the middle of several other countries that are not.
Now, that might not be desirable, or even possible, given a certain set of circumstances. As you said, it might, at a certain point, become clear that looking out for ourselves and supporting Israel is having our cake and eating it too (which, as I understand it, is not generally considered a realistic option…).
I don’t know if this makes much sense, but I guess the best way to put it would be that maybe we should maintain some sort of presumption that supporting a country like Israel is optimal – but in practice be willing, upon review, to discard this presumption.
November 30, 2010, 10:42 amDilan Esper says:
Andrew.
I suspect our alliance with Israel is actually a bad idea from a security standpoint, given it makes us a target. But I do agree, within limits, that there is a case for supporting Israel as one of a few decent governments in the region.
Note, however, that this only works if Israel remains a decent government. The more they repress the Palestinians and aid and discriminate in favor of the settlers, the less defensible Israel becomes.
November 30, 2010, 1:28 pm“Saudis and Other Arab States Want US to Attack Iran’s Nuclear Program” and related posts says:
[...] View thе original article here Awesome Articles:Link 5Link 4Link 4Link 1Link 2Link 4Link 2Link 1Link 2Link 4 [...]
November 30, 2010, 8:15 pmName: Mark says:
Who’s the asshole? Have not read the report, but if I understand correctly, the VIPs are grumbling because they’ve been outbid by the king and moved to coach, from where presumably the plebes have been moved to other areas of the hospital because their standard wards were needed as private rooms for the displaced VIPs. Perhaps at the end of the day some poor people were rolled out into the street. So what? Somewhere in this model, the king has created jobs, I’m sure.
December 1, 2010, 2:43 amAndy Hallman says:
Someone is. Doesn’t killing Iranian nuclear scientists count as a terrorist attack?
December 1, 2010, 10:52 pm