open Democracy News Analysis - Iran, Israel, and the risk of war , Paul Rogers - Comments

Subhash Dhuliya on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

Subhash Dhuliya — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:49:30 +0100

The comments sounds to be too optimistic and ground reality and statements originating for Washington and Tel Aviv are contrary.
Subhash Dhuliya

deborah.gordon on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

deborah.gordon — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:37:35 +0100

Avin, Yawn.

avin on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

avin — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:52:00 +0100

deborah.gordon: "The only thing that will bring peace to that blood soaked region "

[H]ow good it is to be in the company of such an enlightened woman, introducing such a novel and simple solution to problems troubling millions of ignorants.

Of course, another simple solution might include using atom bombs to destroy Iran, and trains to deport the Palestinians.

Us mere mortals, we fail to take such simple solutions, and thus have to drag along the day to day hardships of un-enlightment.

deborah.gordon on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

deborah.gordon — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:18:50 +0100

I won't criticize Bush for being the one on whose watch Iran got the bomb. Everyone knows that it is only a matter of time before Iran gets the bomb. It's got Israeli nukes, Pakistani and Indian nukes in the neighborhood. It's got a U.S.-Israeli alliance that is irrational to a toxic extent, and it's now thanks to the Bush administration's continual threats against it as part of the "axis of evil" (I still start cracking up when I think of how stupid politically was that statement and the policies behind it) on the defensive in ways that it didn't have to be. Of course, Iran will have the bomb, and then every Zionist extremist in the U.S. will go balastic (no pun intended), because Israel will not be able to throw its weight around the M.E. as it has been doing since 1967. Too bad, but unipolarity within a region or throughout the globe is inherently unstable, whether anyone likes that fact or not.

St. Michael Traveler on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

St. Michael Traveler — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:53:05 +0100

Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men!

The starting point for defusing the nuclear cycle issue with Iran is simply a pledge of security for Iran.

Iran submitted a package to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in mid-May 2008 as well as to world powers, including Russia and the United States. The proposal suggests "the creation of uranium enrichment consortiums in various countries, including Iran." It also requires that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) step up its supervision of nuclear sites around the world and asserts that more should be done to ensure nuclear programs would not diverted materials for fabrication of nuclear bomb.

"Thomas Pickering, the US ambassador to the United Nations under President George H.W. Bush, endorsed the idea of such a consortium in a March article in the New York Review of Books." And the plan is "getting increased interest from senior members of both parties in Congress and nonproliferation specialists"[Boston Globe June 10].

Senators Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, have said publicly that the consortium plan should be explored. Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, went further, calling the plan "a creative, thoughtful, and productive potential solution."

Robert Naiman, Tue Jun 17, 3:08 PM ET, NYT Exposes Fraud of "Generous Offer" to Iran reported: “The same PIPA poll found that 58% of Iranians support the idea of making a deal with the UN Security Council that would allow Iran to have a full-cycle nuclear program while giving the International Atomic Energy Agency "permanent and full access throughout Iran to ensure that its nuclear program is limited to energy production" and not producing nuclear weapons. PIPA notes that in a March 2008 poll for the BBC World Service 55% of Americans approved of such a deal.”

“In April, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland published a poll of Iranian public opinion. PIPA found that 81% of Iranians consider it "very important" for "Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program" which would give Iran the capacity to produce nuclear fuel for energy production. Four out of five. Only 5% think Iran should not pursue a full-fuel-cycle program.”
If the basis for the 6-nation negotiation with Iran over her nuclear fuel cycle is enforcement of the United Nations Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), then the Iranian proposal has fully achieved the objective.

President Bush often stated that everything is on the table unless Iran stops nuclear fuel cycle activities. He further has asserted that his administration would only talk with Iran after the nuclear fuel cycle activities verifiably had been stopped. Iranian people have consistently rejected his precondition for diplomatic negotiation. He is using the 6-nation as a fake diplomacy knowing that Iran will not stop her nuclear fuel cycle activities. Iranians consider the nuclear fuel cycle a part of their national energy independence.

Israel and the United States advocate that Iran would be dangerous learning about nuclear technology; what if they use this knowledge sometimes in the future and make nuclear bombs. Israel, whose nuclear arsenals and airplane to deliverer the devices were subsidized mostly by USA, has been assured by both Republican and Democratic candidates that if Iranians would ever develop any nuclear bomb and if she would use the bomb on Israel, we will obliterate Iran to dust.

Israel and USA are insisting that unless Iran stops their nuclear fuel cycle, jointly they will destroy their country. It is reported that President Bush may not allow Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production. This action will result in increase of price of gas to a $10 per gallon and disruption of the International market. Also, it is reported that President Bush may consider a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf. This action is declaration of war and attacking Iran, the beginning of the World War III.

Should we set example and require Israel to eliminate her nuclear bombs. President Truman said: "Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men." [Truman, public Papers]. Benny Morris Israeli historian said: Killing of Millions of Iranians by Israeli Nuke is Justified. If the world cannot protect Iran, then can we force Iran not to protect herself?

Iraj Mirza on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

Iraj Mirza — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:45:00 +0100

Mr. Roger should know that there was no meeting in Paris on July 19, 2008, between the representatives of the 5 plus-one and the Islamic Republic. Perhaps he is referring to the meeting in Geneva on that date by the same group.
On the more substantive issues, this gentleman is as misguided as most other commentators on this topic. Negotiations for the Iranians are simply an excuse to buy time. One morning, not to long from now, we all shall wakeup with the dreadful news that the Islamic Republic has an atomic bomb!
I love to see the egg on the face of Mr. Roger and the rest on that day. Most probably, the same people who today criticize President Bush for being to harsh on the Iranians, will criticize him because 'they got the bomb on Bush's watch.'

(Iraj - Thanks for the correction. This was an editing error and not the author's. The text has now been amended)

deborah.gordon on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

deborah.gordon — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:30:16 +0100

No, the U.S. will not do it, because Americans will not pay $10 a gallon for gas for Israel. The "attachment" of Americans to Israel does not run that deep. Israel will do it, and whoever is in the administration--it doesn't matter, Democrat, Republican, Independent--and Congress will have to issue twenty statements of absolute 100% support which will be covered ad nauseum in the press. Obama's decision to appoint Dennis Ross as an advisor on the Middle East is the kiss of death to any two state solution.

Oh Ross and his henchmen in Tel Aviv will try to shove down the throats of Abbas anything they can, but Abbas will be assasinated before he'll ever agree to what they have in mind for him. It won't be near Israel's so-called generous "offer," which wasn't even an offer but a "discussion" of three cantons at Camp David.

Democrats will claim that Obama will make a difference. He won't. No one should hold their breath that either the Democrats or Republicans will deliver anything remotely close to what any Palestinian leader will need to have minimal legitimacy among his own people. But then no White House gives a fig about Palestinian democracy; they only care about Palestinian acquiesence to whatever Israeli largesse dictates.

The only thing that will bring peace to that blood soaked region is an international civil society campaign like with South Africa that brings sanctions, divestment and boycott of Israel, so that the Israeli people stop thinking that everything can be normal, while Israel treats its Palestinians Arabs as second class citizens not only in the area of funding for villages, towns, education but also in terms of land ownership. And Israel will never gut its laws about Jewish land ownership, so it's clear that the only solution will come far into the future which is one state for all of its citizens not a Jewish democracy for Jews and theocracy for Arabs.

rbmarks on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

rbmarks — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:45:50 +0100

A two bit house painter from Austria rose to leadership in Germany during the 1930's. Declaring his ambition for a final solution for the Jews amidst claims for territory from others he was ignored for too long until a world war in which countless millions perished including twenty million Russian,six million Jews and so many Europeans and Americans.

With another two bit demagogue now leading the Iranian nation, with open declaration to wipe the State of Israel from the map, can anyone, including Paul Rogers for one moment doubt that Israel is going to take decisive action?

Faisal Kadri on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

Faisal Kadri — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:14:15 +0100

As usual, Paul Rogers' article is timely and excellent,
but I was expecting a conclusion with regards to the US elections, not Iran's. To my mind, an Israeli attack before the US elections would serve Sen. McCain, yet the speech of Sen. Obama during his Israel visit sounds like a green light to go ahead with the attack. If this is true then the timing could be much sooner (1-2 months).

leighcmeyers on "Iran, Israel, and the risk of war "

leighcmeyers — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:34:03 +0100

On the recent US-North Korean lovefest...

The North Koreans recently ocean-shipped a Soviet weapons parts resupply at the behest of the US government for Ethiopia, fighting a US dirty war in Somalia and the Horn of Africa.

South Korea was outraged and accused the US of helping the North violate the very treaty the US championed at the UN.

Iran, Israel, and the risk of war , Paul Rogers

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:29:13 +0100

The prospect of war over Iran's nuclear plans seemed to recede in mid-July 2008 after a marked change in United States attitudes to the country. This was signalled by the decision to hold direct talks with the Islamic Republic for the first time since the revolution of 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis that did so much to embitter relations between the two countries. The outcome of the discussions held in Geneva on 19 July was disappointing to western hopes of concessions from Iran over its uranium-enrichment plans, but the fact of the meeting has been hailed as a positive step that diminishes what had seemed to be the escalating risk of armed confrontation.

Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).

A static momentum

The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)

This element of ambiguity was reflected too at the 19 July meeting (which included representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany). Although the US was represented by under-secretary of state William Burns, the highest ranking US official to be in dialogue with Iran for many years, the sense of a process almost immediately stalled was palpable. The secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was critical of the Iranian delegation immediately after the meeting (see Matthew Lee, "U.S. says Iran not serious at nuclear talks", Baltimore Sun, 21 July 2008). Members of other delegations that took part were scornful of Iran's preparation and input, including the paper distributed at the meeting which outlined Tehran's core positions (see Elaine Sciolino, "Iran offers 2 pages and no ground in nuclear talks", International Herald Tribune, 22 July 2008).

Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001.

A vengeful disillusion

The Geneva dialogue may nonetheless have confirmed that the balance within the George W Bush administration has moved away from planning for war with Iran. This would be a cruel disappointment to those inside (vice-president Dick Cheney and his team) and outside (neo-conservative and other hawkish voices) the administration who have long sought to match action against Iran to the "axis of evil" rhetoric.

Indeed, the reaction of the analysts who have promoted a hardline agenda on Iran to Washington's change of approach is instructive. For many, it has evidently been a bad dream which has confirmed their sourness towards Condoleezza Rice and the state department but also introduced a new note of disillusioned disgust against the George W Bush administration as a whole.

The hardliners' unsettled mood is compounded by Barack Obama's lead in the opinion polls, amid a more general positive coverage of the Democratic candidate's campaign reflected in the blanket coverage of his overseas tour to Afghanistan, the Middle East and western Europe (see Dan Balz, "Obama Going Abroad With World Watching", Washington Post, 19 July 2008).

In addition, the agreement of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki with Obama's call for a major US troop withdrawal from Iraq is a serious embarrassment for the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has been making much of Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs (see Jim Lobe, "McCain knee-capped by Maliki", Asia Times, 23 July 2008). The widespread frustration of Republicans and conservatives at the Obama summer festival is reinforced by the apparent media sidelining of the campaign of the Republican candidate, John McCain (see Linda Feldmann, "McCain camp cries foul", Christian Science Monitor, 24 July 2008).

Yet the neocon focus on Iran remains central, with a rising sense of aggravation that Iran has been rewarded with serious diplomatic attention from Washington even though it has made no effort (and has expressed no intention) to cease its uranium-enrichment activities. Such a cessation had long been a pre-requisite for any change in the US's attitude; its abandonment opens the administration to that toxic charge: appeasement, only one step from betrayal.

In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here.

Paul Rogers's most recent book is Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed.

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute described Bush's reversal as "diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime" (see Michael Rubin, "Now Bush is Appeasing Iran", Wall Street Journal, 21 July 2008). Indeed, Rubin contends: "As Ahmadinejad begins his re-election campaign, he can say he has successfully brought Washington to its knees through blunt defiance, murder of US troops, and Holocaust denial."

This is strong stuff, but others are even harsher on the Bush administration. Stephen F Hayes, a regular commentator in the neocon journal the Weekly Standard, makes a direct connection with the Bush about-turn on North Korea (which included, on 26 June 2008, removing Pyongyang from the United States's list of state sponsors of terrorism). After North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006, Bush initially rejected calls for negotiations; yet in a matter of weeks he allowed the state department's Christopher R Hill to meet a North Korean delegation, with a further meeting in Berlin in early 2007. This rapprochement notwithstanding, Stephen F Hayes notes that North Korea assisted Syria in developing the nuclear reactor that was (on 6 September 2007) to be bombed by Israel.

Hayes goes on to argue:

"Despite all of this - despite North Korean nuclear aid to one of the world's leading terrorist regimes and despite its subsequent failure to account for its nuclear programs - in June the Bush administration volunteered to lift sanctions on North Korea under the Trading with the Enemy Act and, over the objection of our close ally Japan, decided to remove North Korea from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terror" (see Stephen F Hayes, "'Stunningly Shameful': The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran", Weekly Standard, 28 July 2008).

Another stern reproach for the administration's u-turn on Iran comes from the former under-secretary of state for arms control and United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, John Bolton. Bolton focuses too on Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear plans, and is straightforward in arguing that the Bush policy towards Iran has failed, and that it is reasonable to expect Israel to take military action. Moreover, he argues:"we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is a compelling logic to make it as successful as possible" (see John Bolton, "Israel, Iran and the bomb", Wall Street Journal, 15 July 2008).

A spreading unease

Meanwhile, Israeli sources report that Iran is about to get the first shipments of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system which can track multiple incoming aircraft simultaneously and can attack up to twelve at a time (see Yaakov Katz, "Officials: Advanced S-300 on way to Iran", Jerusalem Post, 23 July 2008). Some sources indicate that a number of the missiles could be deployed around nuclear sites later in 2008 or very early in 2009, making any Israel attack far more costly (see Dan Williams, "Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 - Israel", Reuters, 23 July 2008).

In Israel itself, there is now far more talk of the need to take action before the US presidential election comes to a climax on 4 November 2008, or at latest before the new president is inaugurated 20 January 2009. The Israeli academic Benny Morris is among those arguing that an Israeli attack is highly likely:

"Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months - and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program" (see Benny Morris, "Using Bombs to Stave Off War", New York Times, 18 July 2008).

For their part, the western European countries may have been buoyed by the US's leaning towards dialogue with Iran, but the overall mood in at least some capitals has otherwise darkened notably in recent weeks. In contrast to the relief engendered by Washington's cautious reach-out to Tehran, there is mounting unease at the chances of dissuading the Israelis from using their perceived window of opportunity.

A conflict involving Iran is not inevitable, but the blunt fact is that it is more likely in the next few months than at any time in the last five years. Alongside the incalculable - but almost certainly very grave, and possibly catastrophic - security and economic consequences, at least one likely political effect is not what the conflict's architects would wish. This is that a singularly hardline presidential candidate would gain a much needed boost in a forthcoming election as his country falls into line behind him at a time of crisis; thus might Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in mid-2009 help ensure himself four more years in power.

Average rating

(5 votes)