Terrorists and Hawks together again…

As Rex noted in an e-mail, we again see conservative hawks and radical Islamists on the same side of an issue.  They both want a war with Iran.

Bruce Riedel – “Al Qaeda Plans for War With Israel” – channels the AQ position, as recently passed on in grisly, terrorist-instructing detail by Saeed al Shehri in messages to “the faithful” (both theirs and ours):

So why does al Qaeda want another war? Because it calculates an Israeli strike on Iran will prompt Iran to strike back against not only Israel but also the United States. Iran will attack American installations in the Gulf, encourage its proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan to attack Americans, and engage in a global terror campaign. In Lebanon, Hezbollah will start another war, raining missiles down on northern Israeli cities and towns and provoking Israeli airstrikes on Beirut and maybe even into Syria. Iran might even try to close the Strait of Hormuz and disrupt the global energy market. All this chaos and violence will make America even more unpopular in the Islamic world and open doors for al Qaeda to exploit. In this they are right, another war will be blamed on America rightly or wrongly. Shehri and his boss, Osama bin Laden, probably don’t really know if another war is in the making but they are almost certainly right that if it comes it will be good news for al Qaeda.

It’s interesting that Saeed via Riedel seems certain that Israel will act alone – though with presumed U.S. and U.S. allies’ support – but it’s not clear how much difference it would make in the overall calculation – and growth opportunity for extremists. As we know – for instance from reading Contentions religiously like all right-thinking Americans – American hawks figure that if the job is going to be done, it ought to be done right, by the U.S. Air Force, and that letting little Israel be our proxy is unnecessarily risky and more than a little bit dishonorable.

Of course, neither Riedel, nor Saeed al Shehri, nor you, nor me, nor Jeffrey Goldberg, nor our former colleague JE Dyer, nor Robert Wright, nor 100 war-gamers, nor anyone else really can predict the future blow by counter-blow, world with or without end.  Goldberg rests humbly on a “greater than 50/50” chance of war within a year:  In other words, after all his interviews and ratiocination, it’s kind of a coin flip.  JED punts on predictions, but otherwise comes across as confident in her own powers of prophecy, somewhat as ever:  Re-stating her own previously enunciated positions and largely endorsing Caroline Glick’s typically bleak assessments, JE asserts that a nuclear Iran would be positioned to push the U.S. out of the region and isolate, presumably destroy Israel.

On an important supporting point in JED/Glick-ism, Wright is as skeptical as the Israeli theoretician Martin Van Creveld has been, that a “nuclear umbrella” would protect or encourage the nuclear power’s “proxies.”  Historical experience has been the opposite:  Nuclear states resort to proxies and low level war precisely because they can no longer risk escalated conflict.  The results can be highly stressful to the prime mover – Soviets in Afghanistan, U.S. in Vietnam, both sides in Korea – but they remain limited to stabilizing the status quo, not radically altering it.  (My own view is that nuclear deterrent would protect Iran itself from massive retaliation or invasion, but that the latter has never been on the table anyway.)

Wright’s main argument, however, is political-rhetorical jiu-jitsu – what he perceives as the implicitly self-contradictory argument in Jeffrey Goldberg’s major piece on Israeli calculations:

His article, read closely, suggests that even from Israel’s point of view, there’s no sound rationale for bombing Iran, especially when you consider the long-term downside: an attack would radically dim what prospects there are for lasting peace in the Middle East; Israel’s downward spiral — in which regional hostility toward it leads to conflicts that only deepen the hostility — would be sustained big time. If appealing to America’s interests isn’t enough to keep Israel from attacking Iran, maybe appealing to Israel’s interests will help.

In short, even the Israelis don’t really believe a nuclear Iran is unmanageable, if they and their allies maintain the will to manage it:  The arguments regarding supposed existential peril are a mixture of history-based emotionalism (referencing the Holocaust), propagandistic fantasy (suicidal-genocidal Iranians), and ahistorical exaggeration (nuclear-fearful Israelis brain-draining away). Thought through rationally, the arguments against Israeli action are as strong now as they have been on every day prior to today, and as they will remain.

What Wright does not acknowledge is that we have already defined a nuclearized Iran as a point of no return, an historical setback, a devastating blow to non-proliferation, to the hope of a peaceful world and especially to a more peaceful Middle East, and to American credibility.  Whether or not it should and must be all of those things, we seem set on experiencing them that way.  That might mean that the blow to American credibility has already been sustained, and that it’s just a matter of observing its further effects.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

5 comments on “Terrorists and Hawks together again…

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. I have never heard a hawk like Bolton,Leeden,Jrub, Npod,Jed,G Brittain etc etc discuss AQ as a factor in the overall issue of war with Iran.

  2. Be careful about grouping Ledeen in with the others. He’s strongly anti-Iranian regime, but, unless he’s changed his tune recently, he hasn’t been pro-bombing or other acts of war.

  3. he hasn’t been pro-bombing or other acts of war

    I read a lot of ML a few years ago;I can’t believe he’d be very critical of any type of Regime Change.

  4. Change, yes – by helping internal resistance mainly. Bombing, no. At least, last I saw him enunciate a position. Would have been a good while ago, however.

  5. Ledeen’s position is support of the Iranian opposition, ala what happened in Eastern Europe in the 80s, through the NED and other
    institutions. There really was no point to that sort of action in Taliban
    controlled Afghanistan, or in Iraq, so the stage was set for covert
    action, TRODPOINT, JAWBREAKER and the various efforts with the INC
    (Chalabi’s group) and Allawi’s ex Baathist INA. After a few attempts that proved unsuccessful so after about 12 years or so, military intervention was carried out

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins