TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
23.06.2008
Yes, Iran Wants a Bomb

The fact is that almost no one believes that the National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear program.  As an editorial in today's New York Sun points out, North Korea also did not yet have a deliverable atomic weapon  Yet the world's powers--including China, though half-heartedly--moved and are still engaged in putting a stop to what everyone knows is on its way to be a catastrophic reality.

Nothing less is the case with Iran.  And, although the silly team of Stephen Walt and Mearsheimer has put its dubious credentials behind Ahmadinejad in saying that he is not really threatening Israel with genocide, almost no one takes the two seriously and others wish Dr. A'jad well in his ambitions.

Anyway, it is not only Israel which justifiably dreads the dreams of the mullahs, although the palpable threat to the Jewish state is both plausible and concrete enough to put the powers on military alert.  I, for one and there are many others, do not have any faith that there will be a diplomatic solution to the danger from Iran. 

I also have little confidence that economic sanctions will do very much at all to stop the nuclear march the ayatollahs' regime.  First of all, the pabulum that comes out of the Security Council is just that, watered down and compromised enough to be without force or even threat.  Then, frankly, the Iranians will sacrifice much to get a bomb.  Like the North Korean communist regime that brought its population over the edge of destitution in order to be a nuclear power. 

Posted: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:33 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

rozenson said:

It's amazing how obsessed the American public (and especially the American media) is with the idea that we might "go too far" in telling Iran "no." My real concern is that we will not go far enough.

Unfortunately, Israel will look like the bad guy when it takes out the nuke sites and drives up oil to $200 a barrel. This is why Bush has been a terrible president for Israel. He has continued to keep America beholden to oil when it is invariably produced by evil countries. If we were as far along in green technology and oil independence as some other countries, we wouldn't have to care about a strike on Iran. Being good to Israel is not just standing up to Libya at the UN; it is creating worldwide conditions that make Israel's security an easier process.

June 23, 2008 4:45 PM

tomeg said:

Wants a bomb?? Of course Dr. A. and the Mullahs want a bomb. Power, prestige, diplomatic clout, envy; denigrate the Jews, intimidate Israel, good ol' fashion' FEAR. Elementary by any calculus, yet many have reasons to be (and stay) in denial, including the people who know (or should know better). Even if, hypothetically, there were no Israel, the motivations to develop a bomb would remain. But, because there is Israel, all the more so. What about this is difficult to see or understand? Who is fooling whom by believing otherwise?

June 23, 2008 8:39 PM

tomeg said:

"Unfortunately, Israel will look like the bad guy when it takes out the nuke sites and drives up oil to $200 a barrel."

Which is why, in the event, the Iranian regime and the rest of the world believe without a trace of doubt that we will assist in any way necessary. Again, what is wrong with that? It is elementary International Relations (a required course for every student majoring in political science, and diplomacy and world affairs (at my liberal arts college, at any rate).

June 23, 2008 9:14 PM

teplukhin2you said:

How will the Israelis ensure that they target all the sites correctly? I recognize that the Israelis believe their backs are to the wall, but practical;y speaking, I don't see how the military option can work.

MAD is the least bad option. Worked for four decades against Stalin and his successors, many of whom were as clownish and nutty as Ajad, anc can work against the Iranians.

June 24, 2008 1:53 AM

ginzy said:

Teplukhin2you : With all due respect (and I do respect) comparing the Soviets and Mahmoud & the Mad Mullahs is far fetched (minimally), if for no other reason that the Soviets were not guided by an apocalyptic theology (I strongly recommend reading the Matthias' Kuentzel's TNR piece from around 2 years ago in which he explained the Shi'ite "twelver" theology to which Mad Mahmoud and ALL the Supreme Leaders adhere).  Keep in mind that it was the "moderate" (at least according to the omniscient NY Times) former president Rafsanjani who mused about the possiblitly of Iran absorbing the cost (in lives) of a nuclear hit as the affordable price to pay for eliminating Israel.

And as the sage Bernard Lewis has noted any number of times, given the Shi'ite 12-er theology, MAD is less a deterrent and more of an incentive.

What is also notable, the concern about Iran and the need to somehow or another prevent it from attaining nuclear capabilities, cuts broadly across a normally very fractious Israeli society from right to left.  Consensus is a rare commodity in Israel but this is one of them.  It helps to focus one's thinking when you are the bull's eye of Mad Mahmoud's target.

I recommend two articles on the current mood in Israel, regarding both Gaza and Iran.  The first, Hillel Halkin's piece in today's NY Sun www.nysun.com/.../80539

And a surprisingly accurate (by NY Times reporting on Israel sub-standards) report on the post-cease fire mood here: www.nytimes.com/.../22bronner.html

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

June 24, 2008 10:35 AM

butchie b said:

Ginzy, maybe I'm wrong, but Ihave a hard time with the idea that the Iranian leadership will choose self-immolation in order to blow up Israel.  All that blather about a 3,000 year old civilization is just that?  Surely we have made it clear to them through a variety of sources that a nuclear attack by them anywhere, but especially Israel, will call forth an American response in kind.  And it won't be symmetrical.  No American President since 1979 would lose votes after nuking Iran, properly provoked.

I have no doubt that President Bush thinks this way, and very little doubt about President McCain.  About President Obama I am not so certain, but if I were the Iranians I'm not sure I'd bet the civilization on it.

June 24, 2008 4:45 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.