The Rats, The Sinking Ship

Peggy Noonan has a piece about Obama's declining support among two key constituencies, the Democratic media and the Demoratic foreign policy establishment, but what caught my eye is this:

Mr Obama is in a hard place. Health care hangs over him, and if he is lucky he will lose a close vote in the Senate. The common wisdom that he can't afford to lose is exactly wrong—he can't afford to win with such a poor piece of legislation. He needs to get the issue behind him, vow to fight another day, and move on.

That is a good point, and not just because I said something similar recently. 

Congressional Dems are in full panic about facing their base and the rest of the voters in 2010 without something they can describe as a success on health care.  But Obama is not up until 2012, so he can play health care the way Bill Clinton played welfare reform in 1996.  Not that Obama wants to belly-flop now and watch his party get crushed in Congress, of course, but he can survive and thrive in that environment in a way that they cannot. 

Up to now, Obama's failure to lead on health care reform has been, we would think, a negative.  But if the bill collapses in the Senate without his fingerprints on it, maybe that can be spun by the remaining Obamites (the few, the proud!) as a failure of Congress rather than the White House.  Triangulation, ho!

Comments

[Captain Hate]

In order to triangulate, you have to actually do something, no?

[Gmax]

If logic were an abundant commodity on the left, this turkey would have been served up at Thanksgiving and the entails put out to the trash.

Obama can not win, look at the blast from Howard Dean who said, basically, without a public option all we are doing is enriching the bad, no very bad insurance companies. He wants no part of that.

Nothing else can or will pass, so the smart move would let the bill die with a flourish and blame Harry Reid. The guy's a goner regardless.

[sam]

The commies will pass HC nationalization.

They know this is their last chance for at least another generation.

They are willing to lose Congress and even the WH for socialized HC.

[anduril]

For God's sake, TM--"we" don't read Peggy Noonan around here. Get with the program, will ya?

[megapotamus]

The Dems are in a hundred boxes of their own construction. Healthcare is one; Noonan recovers a bit of her worth making that obvious observation. I guess there are some elected Dems who truly believe that reform will yield benefits for which they may claim credit but they are split between those who view the oxymoronic Gub Option as manna and poison. That is, the Majority is split before one even addresses the machinations of the Minority. Carbon piracy likewise is lose/lose. The only thing that could "solve" this hoax of a crisis is a crash nuke program. Granolas need not apply. On jobs and the economy there is consensus on the Dem side but it is a consensus for yet more of the lead ballast they have larded onto the productive elements of society. There is no one on the Left and far too few on the Right speaking even the basic arithmetical facts. Nancy Pelosi's battle cry last year was a smug and brave opposition to corruption in the Congress. But of course that turned out to be no more than a partisan bumper sticker. The worst offenders always were and always are Democrats, not least because they can count on aid from the tame press depending on their Lefty bonafides. When they are the only players on stage, this becomes more difficult. But some rubes took that seriously, to their regret. But let no one claim that once passed these disasters are uncorrectable. Who would have believed that even Reality could best the Safetycrats in scrapping the national 55 speed limit? Do not forget that Rostenkowski was chased down the street like a chicken after a smaller healthcare reform was passed yesteryear. Only when the bills started hitting peoples mailboxes did this bite sufficiently. Capntrade especially is coming apart with alacrity. But do not look for Obama or other leading Dems to notice until they are as absurdist as public figures as Al Gore. Liberalism may have needed a conservative foil to make it practical but this lunacy could not be saved even by BobDole. And there ain't no BobDole.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I don't know where the active thread is now, but this Climate Skeptic post is very interesting.

It turns out that the "adjustments" to the temperature record have very nearly the same magnitude and direction as the "hook" in the hockey stick.

[anduril]

WARNING to those with limited reading comprehension skills: this post is more than five lines long and contains numerous polysyllabic words based on Latin roots.

Good article:

The Root of All Fears: Why Is Israel So Afraid of Iranian Nukes?

Most observers believe that Israel’s preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program stems from the fear that Iran would either use a nuclear weapon against Israel or give the bomb to one of its direct proxies, most likely Hezbollah. Given Tehran’s open hostility toward Jerusalem, such foreboding makes sense. But such a scenario is highly improbable.

Tehran’s profound dislike of the Jewish state notwithstanding, it is unlikely to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon because Israel’s atomic arsenal is orders of magnitude larger than whatever infant capability Iran could muster in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Israel is believed to possess a secure submarine-based second-strike capability that could devastate Iran.

Nor would Iran readily supply Hezbollah with atomic weapons. No nuclear state has ever turned over its most prized military asset to a subsidiary actor or surrendered its exclusive control over a weapon that it worked so hard to obtain. More important, if Hezbollah were to acquire and use a nuclear weapon against Israel, there would be no doubt about the weapon’s provenance and Iran would immediately face devastating retaliation. An attack on Israel, in other words, would mean the end of Iran.

Although many analysts question the rationality of the Iranian regime, it is in fact fairly conservative in its foreign policy. Iran has two long-range goals, achieving regional hegemony and spreading fundamentalist Islam, neither of which will be achieved if Iran initiates a nuclear exchange with Israel. Tehran’s expanding influence in Iraq and the fear that it inspires in the Persian Gulf states are already advancing the first goal. Iran needs only to possess nuclear weapons, not to use them, in order to further enhance its international prestige and force adversaries to take it seriously. Likewise, the deterrent power of an unused nuclear capability would allow the regime to spread its ideology without the constant worry of regime change imposed from abroad.

Since it is doubtful that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel or surrender control of the ultimate weapon to Hezbollah -- a point made recently by retired General Shlomo Gazit in Ma’arachot, the quarterly journal published by the Israeli military -- one can safely assume that the root of Israel’s Iranian obsession lies elsewhere.

Israel fears that Iran’s nuclear ambitions could undermine its qualitative superiority of arms and its consistent ability to inflict disproportionate casualties on adversaries -- the cornerstones of Israel’s defense strategy. Although some idealists dream of reconciliation in the Middle East based on a genuine and mutual recognition of all parties’ legitimate rights, most Israelis believe the key to enduring peace in the Middle East is convincing Israel’s adversaries that ejecting Israel through force is an impossible task not worth pursuing.

Essential to inducing that sense of despair is Israel’s ability to continuously trounce its enemies on the battlefield and suffer far fewer losses than it inflicts. The Iranian nuclear program threatens Israel’s ability to do this in two ways. First, an Iranian nuclear capability would likely force Israel to restrain itself due to fears that Iran’s nuclear weapons could provide an implied security guarantee to other anti-Zionist forces -- the sort of guarantee that would prevent Israel from causing the massive losses it has in the past, while giving anti-Israel forces the confidence to keep up the fight.

...

The even greater threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is its potential to unleash a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East...

[Angellight]

Pres. Obama, I believe, thinks it is an advantage that people "underestimate" him, while he quielty works at the Changes that will make peoples' lives more positive and productive!

Obama Bars Thousands of Lobbyists From Washington!

Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.

The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.

The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.

Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/26/AR2009112602362.html

[anduril]

Yes, Charlie, very good. There's another article at PJM that makes some related points re placement of temperature monitors.

[PD]

WARNING to those with limited reading comprehension skills: this post is more than five lines long and contains numerous polysyllabic words based on Latin roots.

So we should just skip it, then. That's the goal you're aiming to achieve?

And here I was, sitting on the fence in what to think of your postings. You've certainly moved me off the fence.

[anduril]

Small lobbies, mayb--Big Pharma and labor related lobbies will not be banished. And the Goldman-Sachs pedway between Wall Street and WDC will remain open.

[anduril]

If you are among the "we" who find themselves baffled by posts that are longer than five lines and contain polysyllabic words, it would be advisable to stop beating your head against the wall. If you're not bothered by those factors, read on. However, to do so you may need to jump down from the fence.

[Captain Hate]

What is the consensus regarding anduril? Is he more obnoxious because of his eager willingness to buy into any anti-Israel lunatic's stance or his self-back-patting/put-downs of other posters with this crock: WARNING to those with limited reading comprehension skills: this post is more than five lines long and contains numerous polysyllabic words based on Latin roots.

[PD]

If you are among the "we" who find themselves baffled by posts that are longer than five lines and contain polysyllabic words, it would be advisable to stop beating your head against the wall. If you're not bothered by those factors, read on. However, to do so you may need to jump down from the fence.

So in answer to, "Are you deliberately trying to gratuitously insult people?," you answer, "I sure am."

[Captain Hate]

The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size

Maybe the glowbull warming folks could lend a hand with the data....

[narciso]

Have you heard of the Hojjatieh, the millenialist splinter sect of Shia Islam,
that comprises Ahmadinejad's cabinet, including nut job himself. How almost all of these officials including Vahidi, are tied
to Hezbollah's early formation, not a few with trans regional operations like Vienna in 1989 (Quassemlou) and Buenos Aires, (1992,1994)So we have motive, they are working on means, how about opportunity

[PD]

Since this thread is at least tangentially related to people with giant intellects, here's the news via super-genius Joy Behar that "black" is racist even when it pertains to good things. Or perhaps the lesson is that it's good to worry about racism even if you manifestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

(c) all of the above.

[narciso]

Noonan, seems to be crawling out, Kathleen seems to be swan diving into the La Brea tar pits. God god, she is denser than depleted
uranium

[anduril]

Comments re the linked article can be addressed to Dr. Ariel Ilan Roth. At the first of these two sites, Ariel Ilan Roth and Biography: Ariel Roth, he provides a phone number, so you can conveniently just call him and shout obscenities in the receiver. To work yourself into the proper state of frenzy you may wish to review this anti-Israel lunatic's self-hating ravings here: Seeking Help In Howard County.

[narciso]

Dr. Roth, seems to be the same sort, who in 1982-83, could never imagine a nice man like
Mr. Andropov, " he had jazz records"from considering a nuclear first strike against us, yet thought simultaneous that Reagan would provoke WWW 3. Sadly this is the caliber of Obama's disarmament team, lord love a duck.

[Strawman Cometh]

One of the issues researchers face in constructing recent temperature trends is the effect of urban and other heat islands have on the recorded temp. Many recording stations are poorly placed.
Some of the "data smoothing" that is done with the raw temp data is to employ an algorithm to cool down the urban temp's using data from nearby reporting stations.
Steve McIntyre has tried, unsuccessfully, for years to obtain the raw data and algorithms used in these published papers. I recall one post where he was able to obtain elsewhere what he thought, and demonstrated, was the raw data. From the raw data and the published graphs and tables, he forensically reconstructed the algorithm, and showed that instead of bringing down the temp of the the heat islands, the publisher used an ALGOREthm to raise the temps of the surrounding monitoring stations. Kim could probably provide you the link.

[Cecil Turner]

The even greater threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is its potential to unleash a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East...

Yeah, but don't worry about any of 'em actually using them . . . or giving them to Hezbollah . . . because that couldn't happen. And the only reason the Israelis could be concerned is if they fear their ability to "induce a sense of despair" might be in jeopardy.

Does that make any sense? To anyone? Bueller?

Here's another in the series of learning to live with nuclear-armed mullahs:

This paper is distinguished by its recognition of the inherently rational pursuit of nuclear weapons by security deprived states and its proposal of specific policies to minimize the risks of living in a more widely proliferated world.

Personally, I think it's a bit early to give up on the non-proliferation efforts vis-a-vis Iran. Considering Roth's apparent view that proliferation is a bad thing™, it's hard to see why he doesn't agree.

[Ignatz]

--What is the consensus regarding anduril?--

He's a butthead. The science is settled. Any sceptics out there? Didn't think so.

[narciso]

He's rapidly approaching the TCO event
horizon, from which no logic escapes. If one is going to be fatalist cite Sailer or Goldman, but not a peacenik like Roth, who may be a wonderful father, very observant
in his religious ceremonies, but as an analyst lacks a certain something,

[PD]

He's rapidly approaching the TCO event
horizon

Personally, I've thought he had some interesting things to say, but I guess now he's looking to provoke disgust more than interest. Which seems self-defeating.

[Sue]

Unlikely. Doubtful. Could provide. Very reassuring to the Israelis.

[BobS]

I call it typical kerry-esq, hyper-nuansed bs

[Boatbuilder]

Shorter Anduril/Roth (minimal polysyllabic words): Those paranoid Israelis just won't get with the program. But we know they're lying about their fear of Iranian nukes. They know that Iran would never use them, just like they knew in '67 that he Arabs wouldn't attack them, because the Israelis would fight back really hard. They're really afraid that Iran will just use the nukes to continually threaten them with annihilation, which they'd have to pay more attention to because Iran would actually have the means to do so. What the hell is their problem?

[Sue]

The entire article is moot because Iran has stated they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.

[anduril]

Since it is doubtful that Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel or surrender control of the ultimate weapon to Hezbollah -- a point made recently by retired General Shlomo Gazit in Ma’arachot, the quarterly journal published by the Israeli military -- one can safely assume that the root of Israel’s Iranian obsession lies elsewhere.

It's interesting to me that the Israeli military is more open to rational discussion on the Iran issue than is the community of JOM knee-jerkers. I suggest conserving your energy, however--if you expend too much vituperation on Dr. Roth you may not have enough left over to do justice to the iniquity of the IDF for publishing tripe like that of General Shlomo Gazit.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Blocking all lobbyists:

I'm not entirely onboard with this position. Lobbyists represent interests, sometimes called "special interests," but the "interests" are those of groups of people. We may or may not agree with all or any of the interests, but the fact remains it is one way to petition our gov't.

Back in Lincoln's day, the people as individuals lined up outside the President's office to petition for their own interests face to face with the president. As the population grew and the gov't grew, this person petitioning became too unwieldy and impossible timewise for a president. So, people of like-minded interests joined together and appointed one representative to speak for them instead of each petitioning individually.

This is a good thing. A gov't who cuts itself off from the people's interest is called totalitarian, a place I think the Obama admin. is aiming for, but that is a bad thing.

Strict regulation regarding lobbying is fine, necessary really, but to bar lobbying is a bad solution. The fraudsters will just find another avenue to get what they want and the legitimate ones will have no way to voice dissent.

It is sort of like the mindset that thinks taking the guns away from law abiding citizens will somehow cut down on gun crime by criminals.

[Gmax]

Do you have to work hard to become the forum jackass or are you just born with the trait?

[E. Nigma]

Well Sue, thanks for clearing that up! :)

Seriously, the Iranian nuclear program spells bad news for everyone, not least of which are the Israelis.
1) Proliferation of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia subsidized Pakistans nukes. Think they'll share?
2) If Iran does achieve hegemony over the Muddled East, then they might marshal conventional armies to attack Israel in a concerted manner. Previously it was only the "front line" states of Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Maybe they can get themselves involved, while mobilizing an Iraq nation that has expelled American influence, as well as Syria and Jordan (also over-run by a potential nuclear-aided Iran hegemony).
3) If Israel is in desparate straits, would it not use nukes as battlefield weapons? If Israel "fired first", regardless of their tactical or strategic situation, the "world" would probably just pull its collective lip if the Iranians responded with nukes.

There is no way you can put lipstick on this pig and think that the Iranians having a nuclear arsenal is a good thing or even acceptable. They are a renegade and criminal regime, bent on terror and mayhem. Normal people shy away from war and look for any rationalization to avoid it, but ignoring the nature of the Iranian Revolutionary government after 30 YEARS, is a bit thick.

As Michael Ledeen would say, we should be working assiduously to undermine them and help the Iranian people to overthrow them.

Maybe dear Peggy got a whack with a clue bat?

[Sue]

Well Sue, thanks for clearing that up! :)

You're welcome. If it is unlikely and doubtful and improbable that Iran will use its peaceful nuclear weapons energy to strike Israel, then notwithstanding anything else Iran says to contrary, Israel is just being paranoid. I love stories that treat Iran as being misunderstood and Israel as the boogey man. I wonder which country this author would like to be exiled to? I would vote for Iran but I suspect he would choose Israel.

[pagar]

My guess is that Iran will not waste a second once they feel they have a workable nuclear device and a workable delivery system, they will test it over Israel. If there is still anyone to question it, they will claim there was a malfunction. That they never intended to destroy Israel, they were just blowing smoke when they said they did.

[Buford Gooch]

"For God's sake, TM--"we" don't read Peggy Noonan around here. Get with the program, will ya?"

More whining. Stick to making points and drop the whining, and you will gain much respect.

[Buford Gooch]

"WARNING to those with limited reading comprehension skills: this post is more than five lines long and contains numerous polysyllabic words based on Latin roots."

Not only whining, but insulting to anyone who doesn't share your exact view point. Why be such a butt? What do you think it accomplishes?

[anduril]

I wonder which country this author would like to be exiled to? I would vote for Iran but I suspect he would choose Israel.

Wow! Go out on a limb, why not? Just because he's an IDF veteran and a graduate of Hebrew University in Jerusalem you think he'd pick Israel? What an insight!

[narciso]

Look Roth is wrong, and dangerously so, and you would think you of all people, would figure it out. This is 'mirroring' problem
we've discussed earlier with jihadis, with
the Soviets,

[Les Nessman]

" But if the bill collapses in the Senate without his fingerprints on it, maybe that can be spun by the remaining Obamites (the few, the proud!) as a failure of Congress rather than the White House. "

Without his fingerprints on it? I think everyone understands that his, and especially his advisors, prints are all over it; no matter what the spin.

If it collapses and Ozero throws Congress under the much-used bus, a lot of Dem congresscritters will be awfully pissed at an already tarnishing messiah. The knives will be out.

[btw]

Obambi's Agenda:

Obamacare - ain't gonna happen.
Cap & Tax - DOA.
Immigration Reform (amnesty for illegals plus increased legal immigration) - with 17% unemployment and still rising?

Don't make me laugh

[bgates]

Anduril, let's try to quantify the word "doubtful". How about this:

Since there is only a 5% chance that Iran would murder millions of Israelis with nuclear weapons, it is illegitimate for Israel to be concerned about that eventuality.

[Neo]

without a public option all we are doing is enriching the bad, no very bad insurance companies

Of course, this is the primary effect, but Dr. Dean should know better. Adding 30 million more patients to the healthcare roles isn't going make anybody happy as the system becomes bogged down under the increased load.

I've posted elsewhere that the only hope for the Democrats is to abandon virtually everything that Obama said during the campaign last year and try to revive the economy before Election Day.

Working against all of this is Nancy Pelosi who is telling Democrats privately that we need yet another "stimulus" because nobody is seeing any results from the first "stimulus." You don't need to be Albert Einstein to know that "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is insanity, but nobody ever said San Fran Nan was sane.

If the Democrats are going to admit failure with the 1st "stimulus," they should redirect the money that hasn't been spent yet to trying to revive the "private sector," but nobody in the White House has enough experience with the "private sector" to now how to do that. "The Won"-s collection of "community organizer" misfits may know how to run a campaign but are clueless when it comes to actual governing.

[errol]

Our Kenyan Chimp in Chief, is tanking and I'm laughing my keyster off!

Obamacare? Are you kidding? Roughly 90% of Americans have health insurance. Roughly 75% are satisfied with it.

All that needs to be done is to improve it a little around the margins.

- Tort reform.
- Cross state purchasing/competition.
- Deportation of 15 million illegal aliens, who use the ER as their PCP.
- More Health Savings Accounts.

Instead the GOVERNMENT-MEDIA Complex want a top-down, one size fits all, command and control policy.

Ain't gonna happen. Americans are too independent (thank God!) minded for that song-n-dance.

[Dave (in MA)]

errol, don't you know that after 8 years of it being acceptable to compare the president to a chimp, it became racist 312 days ago?

[errol]

Ha, ha, I forgot Dave, my bad!

Of course, our Marxist-Moooslim in Chief does have Kenyan heritage, which makes him much more "chimp like", no?

Bush - for eight years called a chimp. MSM silent about it.

Barry bin Obama - must be treated with kid gloves, our tenderfoot in chief.

:)

[David in San Diego]

When referring to to the Rats, are you talking about the Dem media/foreign policy or are you talking about Peg?

[anduril]

Anduril, let's try to quantify the word "doubtful". How about this:

Since there is only a 5% chance that Iran would murder millions of Israelis with nuclear weapons, it is illegitimate for Israel to be concerned about that eventuality.

How about this--why don't we try to quantify your reading comprehension? Zero.

For those--apparently many--among you JOM knee-jerkers who are severely challenged in the area of reading comprehension, let me point out that Roth nowhere states that Israeli concern over nuclear annihilation is "illegitimate"--he merely points out that Israeli strategists are well aware that such an eventuality is unlikely. In his own words, "highly improbable," "doubtful." Nor does he express sympathy or even liking for the Islamic Republic.

Roth goes on to point out that the improbability of such an eventuality--an Iranian nuclear attack--far from allaying Israeli concerns over Iranian nuclear ambitions, only leads to concerns of a different but scarcely less troublesome nature for Israel. And he goes on to explain in some detail the dilemmas--short of annihilation--that Iranian development of a nuclear weapon would present for Israel.

Roth's intent is clearly to explain to people with brains--that is, people who recognize that Iranian foreign policy can be understood in rational terms--why it is that, while Israel is almost certainly safe from nuclear attack from Iran, Israel is nevertheless extremely concerned about Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.

From the comments I've seen, all this went right over the heads of you JOM knee-jerkers, despite my warning that those with limited reading comprehension skills shouldn't trouble themselves reading Roth's article. The warning was kindly meant and, in fairness, may well have been followed. That is, JOMers may indeed have refrained from reading the article--but nevertheless offered comments from the depths of their self imposed ignorance and incomprehension. In fairness to Roth, if he had known that his ideas would be presented to the denizens of JOM he would probably have presented his ideas in a manner more suited to this audience--perhaps in crayola.

[PD]

Of course, our Marxist-Moooslim in Chief does have Kenyan heritage, which makes him much more "chimp like", no?

No.

[Dave (in MA)]

I don't find anything chimp-like about anybody who's served in the office. I just like pointing out the hypocrisy to the moonbats who used that on Bush.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

It seems every time I turn around there is another St. Louis or Missouri teaparty. This one got over 4000 people out on a holiday weekend. Wake up Washington, hear the people.

4,000 Patriots Rally With James O’Keefe at St. Louis Tea Party Protest

[Peggy Noonan]

Though your ability to copy and paste polysyllabic words is most impressive, even I think you're "coming to seem" a tedious bore, anduril.

[mockmook]

anduril,

I never quite understand, "What is your point?"

I know, I'm stupid.

Is your point that just because you found a paper labeling Iran's holocaust ambitions as "unlikely", "improbable", etc., justifies Israel not acting?

What if I find a paper that says they should act?

I'm sure you would feel nice and cozy in Israel if Iran had a nuke missile, right? And, you wouldn't mind dying with millions of others if your coziness was an illusion, right? If you're wrong, it was just an unfortunate opinion, right?

[Extraneus]

Congressional Dems are in full panic about facing their base and the rest of the voters in 2010 without something they can describe as a success on health care.

I'm not sure they're dumb enough to really believe this, but if they do, I think this is almost historic stupidity. One thing the Dems can count on is their base. They never have to worry about the base; they have to worry about independents.

The best thing that could happen to Democrats is for this bill to go down in a close vote. They could then say "We tried to help, we tried to fix the problems," etc. If it passes, however, there will be a run on sharpened pikes the likes of which we've never seen in this country, and they'll all have bullseyes painted on their backs.

[JB]

Best case scenario for Israel -- Iran gets a free hand through Hezbollah on the Lebanese border.

Ain't gonna happen. Slow death is little better than quick annihilation.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . if he had known that his ideas would be presented to the denizens of JOM he would probably have presented his ideas in a manner more suited to this audience--perhaps in crayola.

Great. Then they'd be colorfully wrong . . . instead of just wrong. Dunno how anyone with a brain can find that drivel persuasive. Mullahs with nukes? What could go wrong?

At least with the proliferation paper he admitted his was a minority view. Shoulda thrown in some caveats with this one. Why you cite whole articles of stupidity remains a bit of a mystery.

[MarkJ]

They are willing to lose Congress and even the WH for socialized HC.

If this is the case, then the Donks are doubly stupid since:

1. A new GOP Congress, using its power of the purse, will simply vote to defund ObamaCare...and His Majesty won't be able to legally do a thing about it. I believe the House can do this with a simple majority and, hey, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few surviving, shell-shocked Blue Dogs also add their votes for good measure.

2. Once ObamaCare is defunded, then the GOP will drive a stake through its heart and replace it with much simpler and better legislation. Obama may rage, but he'll do all his sulking in a corner since over 2/3 of the American public will support Congress's pulling the plug.

[anduril]

At least with the proliferation paper he admitted his was a minority view.

Do you have a problem with providing a link to that paper, a page number and a quote? Since you characterize it as "the proliferation paper" I have to assume you're referring to "Nuclear Weapons in Neo-Realist Theory"--a comparative analysis of the views of Waltz and Mearshimer on the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. I found no reference to a "minority view."

[Sue]

Just because he's an IDF veteran and a graduate of Hebrew University in Jerusalem you think he'd pick Israel? What an insight!

All that and a bag of chips.

[Dennis D]

The Iranian position is that it will only take one or 2 Nuclear Missiles to destroy Israel. And Iran is so large it can withstand an Israeli counter attack if it is still capable. Rafsanjani has expressed these ideas publicly.

[anduril]

I went back and found your link to the article.

[boris]

Elf Lord 0 ... Sea Serpent 3

[billy tom]

WARNING to those with limited reading comprehension skills: this post is more than five lines long and contains numerous polysyllabic words based on Latin roots.

Thankee kinely fer tha wornin'. ah doo prisheeate wen sumwun is so dern thawtfull uv uthurs.

[billy tom]

I went back and found your link to the article.

Ah don cottin ta bragun.

[narciso]

There is nothing in Dr. Roth's formulation that would justify the confidence in the control of Iranian nuclear weapons. Not the
reigning philosophy of Hassan Abbasi, or
the statements of Saed Jalili, the actions of Mottaki, or Shamkhani or Vahidi, all major players in the formation and maintenance of Hezbollah as an Iranian proxy

[Cecil Turner]

Do you have a problem with providing a link to that paper, a page number and a quote?

Already provided the link; I don't do footnotes. This is an expanded quote from the above (actually from the abstract . . . the paper isn't much more detailed, but you can follow the links if you've a mind to):

This paper takes a different tack than most proliferation literature. Most proliferation literature attempts to create incentives to dissuade nuclear aspirants from further pursuing their goal. This paper is distinguished by its recognition of the inherently rational pursuit of nuclear weapons by security deprived states and its proposal of specific policies to minimize the risks of living in a more widely proliferated world.

This isn't the first time someone advanced that argument, btw. It was done better, at least as regards Iran, here. They left out the psychobabble and concentrated on the difficulties inherent in containing Iran's nuke program. I disagree with their conclusions, but at least respect the effort.

[anduril]

Personally, I think it's a bit early to give up on the non-proliferation efforts vis-a-vis Iran. Considering Roth's apparent view that proliferation is a bad thing, it's hard to see why he doesn't agree.

First, Roth recognizes that Iran--in common with several other nations--is unlikely to give up the attempt to gain a nuclear weapons capability. If not stopped, they will certainly gain that capability.

My guess as to Roth's second reason--following on Roth's correct view that sanctions will not stop Iran--is that Roth probably believes that the only alternative--a successful military strike--is unlikely, for military, economic and political reasons. It seems clear that Bush vetoed a military strike and the Obama administration is even less likely to allow one. Therefore, Roth argues that, in view of these facts, it's better to look for ways to manage the probable outcome.

My view, the view of a military amateur, based on what I've read, is that Israel does NOT have the capability to stop the Iranian nuclear program without the active assistance of the US. That is, unless Israel is willing to launch an attack aimed at annihilation of the Iranian nation.

[Cecil Turner]

First, Roth recognizes that Iran--in common with several other nations--is unlikely to give up the attempt to gain a nuclear weapons capability.

You mean unless we provide some serious pressure? I agree. If your argument is that our current President is unlikely to provide that pressure, I'm not sure I have an argument with it. If you're pretending it's impossible (or that the only reason the Israelis could want to do such is paranoia), then I think you're full of shinola. But in any event, citing Roth to me is a waste of breath (ink, pixels?). His silliness you quoted above about Israeli concerns for a perfectly awful strategic threat is risible nonsense. Not sure what his story is, but if he believes that crap, I worry about him.

[anduril]

This isn't the first time someone advanced that argument, btw. It was done better, at least as regards Iran, here. They left out the psychobabble and concentrated on the difficulties inherent in containing Iran's nuke program. I disagree with their conclusions, but at least respect the effort.

Fine. You've dug up a very brief, earlier paper by Roth and you think someone else did a better job of presenting the position that Roth seems to hold. And you find that position to be intellectually respectable, although you disagree. As I said in my last post, I assume that Roth accepts the view--espoused in the article that you link as well as elsewhere--that any effort to contain Iran's nuclear program is inherently very difficult and quite likely impossible.

Mullahs with nukes? What could go wrong?

As you have already acknowledged, Roth sees a lot of things that could go wrong--so your lame attempt at flippancy is both misguided and inaccurate. With regard to Israel, in the article I cited Roth explains a number of the things that could go wrong.

You nowhere address any criticism at Roth's latest work, which is the article that I cited.

[anduril]

If your argument is that our current President is unlikely to provide that pressure, I'm not sure I have an argument with it.

I also argue that Bush was unwilling/unable to apply pressure that would have deterred Iran--as proved by the fact that they continue undeterred to this day. I also argue that Bush had access to more in depth assessments of the probable success/failure of such pressure, whether military or economic than you have.

If you're pretending it's impossible ... then I think you're full of shinola.

That's not an argument. I note that you only "think" that I'm full of shinola--you don't sound so confident. Maybe that's why you're unwilling to get into particulars. I repeat--Bush undoubtedly had those particulars presented to him, probably on several occasions, and always by people more expert than you. I don't doubt he was the recipient of forceful pro and con arguments. Shinola?

But in any event, citing Roth to me is a waste of breath (ink, pixels?). His silliness you quoted above about Israeli concerns for a perfectly awful strategic threat is risible nonsense.

Quote some "silliness."

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Does anyone seriously believe that if it came down to a them or us for Israel, that Israel would be willing to accept being the us? I don't. And I don't think they'd care whether the US gave permission or not. What would they have to lose? If they become the us, they are destroyed, at least if they make the move, they have a chance or go down fighting.

That said, things would have to become much more immediate and dire before I think Israel would act. Iran seems to have its hands full right now with its own people.

[anduril]

I note that Roth cites the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as (in Iran's eyes) an existential threat against Iran. He could also have included our presence in Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. We have Iran surrounded with our military.

As I have stated previously, I have always assumed that the Iraq invasion was undertaken to some significant degree precisely because we would then have Iran surrounded. What undoubtedly seemed like a good idea at the time has nevertheless failed to deter Iran in any way that I'm aware of.

Roth is attempting to deal with reality, not Neocon fantasy.

[james]

interesting point. Obviously passing cap and trade would be bad for America but if it fails by a close margin he can blame republicans and pretend it would have saved the economy. He could run on it the same way he could have if the stimulus failed or if healthcare does. However if he cripples us all with these bills (fiscally speaking of course), he can't blame anyone but himself or "negative thoughts" from unbelievers.

I don't know what to root for. That depends if his successor can fix his mistakes or if his mistakes aren't as bad as I fear.

[Sue]

Does Roth address the nuclear site in Syria that Israel bombed? And wouldn't the fact that someone provided them with nuclear materials make this point of his article suspect: "No nuclear state has ever turned over its most prized military asset to a subsidiary actor or surrendered its exclusive control over a weapon that it worked so hard to obtain." Who does he think provided Syria with nuclear material? The nuclear fairy?

[anduril]

Like almost everyone else in the world, Roth probably believes that Syria's friend was North Korea--well out of range of Israeli retaliation. Google: syria north korea nuclear

[Cecil Turner]

Quote some "silliness."

You already did. Seriously, if you were an Israeli, would you bet your life the Iranians were only bluffing when they threatened to wipe Israel off the map? Would you be the least concerned Roth might be wrong about them deciding to use the nuke they developed?

Here is Roth: "Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not afraid of a nuclear attack by Iran or Hezbollah"; hey, you're right, "silly" is too kind.

[Sue]

Roth probably believes that Syria's friend was North Korea

So the nuclear fairy was the nuclear state of NK but no nuclear state has ever turned over its most prized military asset to a subsidiary actor or surrendered its exclusive control over a weapon that it worked so hard to obtain?

I really don't need to google it. I brought it up for a reason.

[PD]

I note that Roth cites the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as (in Iran's eyes) an existential threat against Iran. He could also have included our presence in Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. We have Iran surrounded with our military.

A coworker of mine was on a flight recently sitting next to an Iranian who voiced exactly this same concern.

Whether that concern is arrived at independently by the Iranian people, or because of propaganda put out by their gov't, I do not know.

I believe it's certainly true that the Iranian gov't does present us as the aggressor against them, although it seems to me the reverse is true. Incursions into Iraq, sending their naval vessels against our to try to provoke a response, etc.

[Cecil Turner]

I repeat--Bush undoubtedly had those particulars presented to him, probably on several occasions . . .

This is a dumb argument. If it happens, the Iranians will develop their nuke on Obama's watch. He's already taken steps to reduce the pressure on Iran (mostly inadvertent, beginning with his rather naive campaign pledge for a presidential meeeting without conditions). The fact that Bush hadn't managed to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough (or decided to bomb the Iranian facilities before the problem was ripe) is irrelevant.

At some point this is likely to come down to use of force, and at that point the issue will belong entirely to President Obama's. I think he ought to have a credible threat of force (which means being willing to do it). I have very little confidence he will. Not surprisingly, most Americans agree with me on the force thing, though they're split on the confidence issue (along party lines).

[Gregory Koster]

Anduril, all you had to say was that the article you originally linked to was published in FOREIGN AFFAIRS, a journal whose enthusiasm for Israel can be found next to the liquid nitrogen...

Consider this point in the FA article you quote:

"Although many analysts question the rationality of the Iranian regime, it is in fact fairly conservative in its foreign policy. Iran has two long-range goals, achieving regional hegemony and spreading fundamentalist Islam, neither of which will be achieved if Iran initiates a nuclear exchange with Israel."

Note that "spreading fundamentalist Islam." Are you saying such an effort will play well with a foreign policy based on realpolitik? I doubt it. Note, too, that the recent Iranian presidential election was, um, controversial, i.e. the fraud required to shove Ahmadinjuts home was prodigious. How can the ruling elite rest easily knowing their citizenry is savagely discontented? Is such unease conducive to the "rational" foreign policy that FA seems to think is floating within The Once's reach?

The point that Iran won't attack Israel directly is well taken. But not the notion of an disguised attack via Hezbollah. The only tears the Iranian leadership sheds when a Hezbollite is butchered are those of the crocodile. Why shouldn't Iran try a nuke with Hezbollah? What about this scenario: Iran smuggles one to either the West Bank or Gaza and fires it INSIDE the WB or G. Thousands of Palestinians are killed, and the international press immediately shrieks that Israel did it. You don't think that's possible? How would you characterize the Jenini "massacre." Said hoax was spectacularly successful in giving Israel a black eye. A nuke exploding in the Gaza or the West Bank would be even more successful. All the deaths caused? A trifling cost to a Left in love with Alinsky tactics, with the mindset of Bill Ayers.

How likely are any of these scenarios? So unlikely that Israelis can sleep peacefully, wincing a bit at the continued onslaught of liberal bigots such as Roth, Walt, Mearsheimer, or dropping quite a bit, Joe Klein? No. Liberal bigotry is on a steady IV drip of anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, Iran, for all its dictatorship, is not stable. The ruling gang is uneasy at best, possibly frightened. At the same time, they can see clearly the new Once style of wearing "Kick Me!" signs in Day-Glo on his pantaloons. The case for appeasing radical Islam is actually stronger, but not, as Roth would have it, because Iran is "maturing" but because the vacuum at 1600 Pennsylvania is sucking all sorts of evil from the woodwork.

I hope you stick around JOM, so I don't have to wear the "longest post" crown, and to show JOMers what the Left is capable of believing.

[Steve]

Great post! I really like your blog - keep up the excellent work!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??

[anduril]

"No nuclear state has ever turned over its most prized military asset to a subsidiary actor or surrendered its exclusive control over a weapon that it worked so hard to obtain."

Please. NK didn't ship a nuclear bomb to Syria. Remember my strictures on reading comprehension. In the case of Syria, NK had nothing at stake in giving their research a push. Iran would, since Iran (not NK) is seeking hegemony in the region.

[anduril]

Here is Roth: "Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not afraid of a nuclear attack by Iran or Hezbollah"; hey, you're right, "silly" is too kind.

Utterly fatuous, but also dishonest. Roth's point, as I already explained, is that Israel has reasons to be concerned about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon capability--despite the fact that Israel has good reason to believe that Iran would not be in a position to use it against Israel. You know that, because I spelled it out in detail. If this is as good as you can come up with...

[sbw]

Hey, Steve, did you know that blogspot considers such spam a violation of its terms of service? They have a handy dandy form to report http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com. I know. I just found it. I just filled it in.

Steve, soon you may not have a link to exchange.

[anduril]

The fact that Bush hadn't managed to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough (or decided to bomb the Iranian facilities before the problem was ripe) is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's very relevant. If Bush, undoubtedly sympathetic to Neocon ideas and generally activist--not to say unilateralist--in foreign policy, decided against action against Iran's nuclear program, that's a clear indication that there were strong reasons that dictated restraint.

[Sue]

Remember my strictures on reading comprehension.

Sure. You have a problem with comprehension. We haven't held it against you. Much.

[anduril]

PD, I recommend to everyone that they acquaint themselves with the basics of Persian/Iranian history. This excerpt from Wikipedia will give you a flavor for why they're distrustful of the US:

n 1925, Reza Khan overthrew the weakening Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. Reza Shah initiated industrialization, railroad construction, and the establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance Russian and British influence, but when World War II started, his nascent ties to Germany alarmed Britain and Russia. In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to use Iranian railroad capacity during World War II. The Shah was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Empress Farah about to depart after a visit to the United States

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic.

Is it any wonder that the Persians resented our intervention on behalf of the British and that they would still harbor suspicions over our interference in their affairs? I'm not saying we shouldn't be involved in the Mideast, but let's be realistic--we shouldn't expect to be loved.

A bit deeper reading in Persian history should convince you that the Persians are a proud people and heir to a great civilizational tradition. However, their history has been punctuated at regular intervals by brutal barbarian invasions by Mongols, Turks and Arabs. As a result, the Persians are intensely suspicious of foreign attempts to intervene in their affairs. Because of their geographic vulnerability they almost instinctively seek security through exercise of hegemony over their neighbors. US policy during the time of the Shah was to assist and direct this instinct.

Engagement with Iran, on a limited basis, is not impossible for the US. We have some common concerns, as in Afghanistan. However, Iran is unlikely to ever welcome our presence in the Persian Gulf or Central Asia. What I advocate is a return to our old policy of attempting to balance the opposing forces in the Mideast in order to achieve our aims. That will require constant rebalancing but is preferable to extended military occupations. The military policy that we have adopted is too expensive but also unrealistic for a republic with a citizen army.

[Cecil Turner]

Utterly fatuous, but also dishonest.

Pi** off. It's a silly quote (which you specifically asked for), and moreover it's obviously silly on its face. You didn't "explain" Roth's point, any more than Roth can read the minds of the Israelis he's supposedly mindreading about whether or not they're afraid of Iranians using nukes. You can't defend it, so you descend to ad hominem. Weak.

If Bush [. . .] decided against action against Iran's nuclear program, that's a clear indication that there were strong reasons that dictated restraint.

What, he decided not to bomb 'em? Did he decide not to bomb 'em in 2011-2012 (when most experts expect they'll actually develop a weapon)? Or did he decide not to bomb 'em in 2008, three years before they'd actually have a bomb? Can you see the teensiest little difference here? Or are you too dim to discuss this stuff with? Judging from your fascination with Roth, I suspect it's the latter.

[anduril]

More heresy, from a Neocon standpoint: anyone who wants to at least make a stab at understanding these issues should read Trita Parsi's Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. In fact, by following the link to Amazon and reading the reviews you'll get an idea of the complexity of this triangular relationship. And guess what--you don't have to agree with everything you read. What you do need is to be able to articulate the grounds for your agreement or disagreement based on real world considerations. Facts, knowledge of history, stuff like that.

[PD]

A bit deeper reading in Persian history should convince you that the Persians are a proud people and heir to a great civilizational tradition. However, their history has been punctuated at regular intervals by brutal barbarian invasions by Mongols, Turks and Arabs. As a result, the Persians are intensely suspicious of foreign attempts to intervene in their affairs.

Which distinguishes them from all other countries on the planet.

[anduril]

Pi** off.

What's silly, and dishonest, is you taking his words out of context and trying to deceive people on this forum. Here, let's compare.

Cecil, quoting Roth:

Here is Roth: "Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not afraid of a nuclear attack by Iran or Hezbollah"; hey, you're right, "silly" is too kind.

Roth, later in the article--I quoted this in my initial post:

Israel fears that Iran’s nuclear ambitions could undermine its qualitative superiority of arms and its consistent ability to inflict disproportionate casualties on adversaries -- the cornerstones of Israel’s defense strategy.

No honest commentary on Roth's article can leave that part out. Roth is saying, point blank: Israel isn't concerned about Iran's nuclear program because it fears a direct attack; rather, Israel is concerned that, despite its own ability to deter an Iranian attack, Iranian development of a nuclear weapon would nevertheless undermine the "cornerstones of Israel’s defense strategy." That's a pretty big deal.

The point Roth is making is one that he develops in "Nuclear Weapons in Neo-Realist Theory"--a comparative analysis of the views of Waltz and Mearshimer on the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. Roth's larger point is that mere possession of nuclear weapons (say, by Israel) may deter a nuclear attack by another country (say, Iran), but it may nevertheless NOT prevent a deterioration in that country's overall security situation. And in the article I cited he spells out the reason for that conclusion in detail.

Therefore, Roth is very far from welcoming a proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran--on the contrary, he believes that such proliferation would have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Mideast. However, for reasons that he (admittedly) should develop more explicitly (but on which I touched briefly), he believes that proliferation to Iran is probably inevitable. Therefore, he says, we need to do some serious planning on how we are to manage that seeming inevitability.

[anduril]

Which distinguishes them from all other countries on the planet.

Not necessarily, but it certainly distinguishes them from the United States. Our geographical security and incomparable resources unquestionably lead us to very different evaluations of strategic threats--in comparison to nations that have lived long histories surrounded by capable enemies on their very borders.

[Gregory Koster]

OK, Anduril care to comment on

a) Roth's admission that one of Iran's basic goals is to spread Islamic fundamentalism, a goal at odds with any sort of realism in foreign affairs. Specifically Palmerston's dictum that "England has no eternal friends, England has no eternal foes, England has only eternal interests." Islamic fundamentalism makes a Palmerstonian approach to Iranian foreign policy untenable. Does make a swell excuse to keep the wounds of 1953 green, today, tomorrow and forever, always providing an excuse. Following your idiotic formula, Germany will never have diplomatic relations with the US, since the US has helped overthrow not one but two German governments in a century, while killing hundreds of thousands of Germans.
b) Iran is an unstable dictatorship, as the uproar about Ahmaidijinuts's stolen election shows.
c) The United States is runnning the most pallid foreign policy since Jimmy Bumpkin.

All these facts have considerable weight in any US-Iran interaction. They do not, however, have any Jews in them, which is why Joe Klein's fur doesn't bristle, and Roth, Walt, Mearsheimer&Co. noses tilt back, the better to look down at the peasants with. Israel doesn't have to be the only factor in Middle East relations, as convenient as this is for the Arabs and Klein, etc.

You too?

Waiting to read something from you on this comment. Your continence up to now, is not characteristic.

[Cecil Turner]

No honest commentary on Roth's article can leave that part out. Roth is saying, point blank: Israel isn't concerned about Iran's nuclear program because it fears a direct attack;

Sorry, I thought you were being snide, but you actually don't get it. The contention that "Israel" doesn't worry about a direct attack is perfectly silly. Of course they do. Wouldn't you? Your response to bgates above was strange. Is a 5% chance of nuclear annihilation acceptable? Of course not. Do you play frogger in the freeway? Me neither. Yeah there are other concerns with a nuclear Iran, but the main one is fear of attack (because even if it's unlikely, the damage is far more severe).

Besides, Roth's analysis lacks even internal logic. He starts by saying "Israel’s atomic arsenal is orders of magnitude larger than whatever infant capability Iran could muster in the foreseeable future." And hence no real threat, and then goes on to claim Israel is worried about losing its "qualitative superiority of arms" from the Iranian nuke program. Hey, which is it? If it's not a threat because it's such a minimal capability, how does it undermine Israel's superiority? The answer of course is that it is a threat.

Moreover, once the genie is out of the bottle things get worse quickly. Iran is building on well-known scientific principles, has a significant missile capability, and their capability could be expected to grow very quickly. Israel is far more vulnerable than Iran (smaller population in much more concentrated area). Iran also has ten times the population, twice the economy, and far more potential capacity by any metric. They also have a deep-seated enmity toward Israel as evidenced by the continuing flow of munitions to Hezbollah. And while the mullahs might be reticent to give their first, second, third, or even tenth nuke to Hezbollah, at some point the calculus shifts and the "most prized" asset is no longer too valuable to part with. And with a second-strike capability of their own, and plausible deniability of their catspaw's use of a weapon, the "devastating retaliation" becomes less likely, and the "highly improbable" scenario less unthinkable. That is precisely the future Israel faces in the relatively near term, if Iran's nuclear program achieves fruition. How that could be anything other than a nightmare to Israel's defense planners (and ours!) is beyond me.

[Cecil Turner]

What's silly, and dishonest, is you taking his words out of context and trying to deceive people on this forum.

I was going to absorb this insult, but I think it's worth pointing out what a crock it is. Here's the header for your "good article," with the part I quoted in bold:

The Root of All Fears
Why Is Israel So Afraid of Iranian Nukes? Ariel Ilan Roth
November 24, 2009
Summary -- Contrary to popular belief, Israel is not afraid of a nuclear attack by Iran or Hezbollah; rather, it fears losing its nuclear monopoly in the region and the image of invincibility that comes with it.

That's the main point of the summary sub header, and the main point of the article. How you can pretend that's "out of context" or dishonest is hard to feature. I take it for projection.

[Narciso]

God anduril you are dense specially since Parsi has been revealed As being virtuallya regime mouthpiece . If the Brits removed Reza because he was a Nazi mouthpiece and mossadecq as A communist one, are they supposed to apologize, let's get real

[bgates]

let me point out that Roth nowhere states that Israeli concern over nuclear annihilation is "illegitimate"

-but he does state that "one can safely assume that the root of Israel’s Iranian obsession lies elsewhere" than a concern over nuclear annihilation. How could that be safely assumed if Israel had a legitimate concern about nuclear annihilation?

You see, sometimes when people actually understand what they read, they use words not found in the original text to convey the same meaning.

[bgates]

Roth cites the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as (in Iran's eyes) an existential threat against Iran.

Where did he say that?

why don't we try to quantify your reading comprehension? Zero.

I knew we were talking about Israel, Iran, and nuclear weapons. I suspect you may not have learned how to count as high as zero.

[BR]

Since Israel has to deal with the harsh realities, from a different viewpoint Israel can lick its lips - ah, nukes in Iran? All the better for us to have something to blow up and maintain our aura of invincibility by successful action.