a)  My prediction:  Putin WILL go through with the Caribbean maneuvers after the Obama (presumed) inauguration, irrespective of the price of oil.  He'll do it as part of his general policy of re-establishing Russia's world power status and to show that he can eat Obama for breakfast.

Obama will capitulate but come up with some  verbal fig leaf to explain that he is policy goal is to reduce world tensions, that the Caribbean after all is international waters, and that if we ignore the Russians, they'll go away.

b)  The price of oil will go back up to the $90-$99 barrel range.  OPEC will see to it.  At that level it's high enough to support Iran & Venezuela's aspirations to grandeur & military power but below the psychological level of triple digit per barrel oil.  The progressobabbelian pooh-bahs of punditry will praise OPEC for its restraint and point out that the moderately high price of oil is tolerable, particularly when compared to $147 /barrel.

c)  Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions.  Period. They are too close to achieving their goal.  All they need is more time.   It's motivated primarily by its apocalyptic Shi'ite eschatology which Westerners have trouble comprehending, let alone combating.

Indeed, barring a Bush-launched effictively destructive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities (theoretically possible but highly unlikely) or an Israeli attack that delays Iranians enough to give the "International Community" another chance to prove its mettle (possible but for a variety of reasons, increasingly unlikely)  I expect that Iran will have tested a nuclear weapon by the end of Obama's first term, or the latest by the end of Obama's presumptive second term.  At that point, the attitude of the O-B team has already been stated by B himself -- Israel will just have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.  Which is another way of saying that Israel will be transformed into the West's nuclear miner's canary.

Welcome to the 21st Century edition of the 1930's

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

So, energy conservation, willing or not, seems like the best way to temper Iranian or Russian adventurism?

Post Script to my dourly dire predictions above.

After I posted, I came across the following in James Taranto's estimable WSJ blog, "Best of the Web".

(online.wsj.com/.../SB122452286805950719.html)  From a recent Biden fundraising speech:

   "Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

   "I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you--not financially to help him--we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

The original ABC News report on Biden's speech:  blogs.abcnews.com/.../biden-to-suppor.html

And this is supposed to be reassurance from Obama's own running mate?  What he saying in effect that regardless of how bad things will look, set aside your instincts and keep the faith.  If that isn't  delusional messianism I don't know what is.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

Amidut, I have no problem with energy conservation in its own right.  I just don't think it's enough to block the Russians in the short and medium term and the Iranians at all.  The Iranians are going to pursue nuclear weapons come hell or high water to acheive their eschatological goals.

And pushing the price of oil to the $90-$99 range should not be too difficult for a cartel like OPEC.

hg

On the upside ginzy, I look forward to having that fairly terrible utterance explained/rationalized as only tnr can.  Meanwhile, better get Joe back to his special room.

Selish,

I would laugh if I could, but my mind is sort of focused by virtue of living in Mad Mahmoud's cross hairs.  B's statement is sort of reminiscent of the 17th century false messiah Shabtai Tzvi who ultimately converted to Islam.

hg

***CORRECTON*** to my previous post:

I would laugh if I could, but my mind is sort of focused by virtue of living in Mad Mahmoud's cross hairs.  B's statement is reminiscent of SUPPORTERS OF the 17th century false messiah Shabtai Tzvi who ultimately converted to Islam.

hg

Ginzy, as always I enjjoyed your well thought out posts.

I read the price of oil and markets a little differently than Marty.  The Dow @ 9,000 really handcuffs the US & Israel from giving Iran the Spanking they deserve.  I personally have been out of the markey waiting for resolution to the Iranian problem.  Either we hit them and the market drops, Israel hits them and the market drops, or they get the bomb and the market drops.

Not sure if Obama is a problem here or not.  If Obama is elected he could always ask Bush & Cheney to finish what they started and green light a strike.  Obama & Biden come to negotiate as Good Cops.  Obama has other levers to pull if needed.

But if the US Economy doesn't recover soon, we not going to make any bold moves one way or the other.

Maybe Tzipi Livni will be able to make a move.  Lots of targets in Lebanon, Syria & Iran to start turning up the heat.

Yes, lots of targets out there.

Bomb them, bomb them all.

You're right Oh Ignorant One... why waste all that ordnance when Israel is such a convenient miner's canary for the EU-niks?

Just think, if Iran does test a nuke successfully, you could wag your little fingie at Israel (and you are so good at that) & say that Israel better capitulate to all of Iran's demands or else Iran will make owies on Israel.  And if Iran actually launches a missile (conventional or nuked) against Israel but which is intercepted by the Israeli anti-missile system, you could wag a fingie at Iran (although I am sure you'll find a reason to "understand" why they are doing what they are doing) but at the same time wag a fingie at Israel & say that Israel should not retaliate since the Iranian attack didn't succeed and the Iranians didn't really mean it.

And maybe, just maybe if you are really lucky and an Iranian missile does get through Israel's anti-missile shield (after all no defensive system is ever 100% effective) and the missile carries a nuke, which gives Israel one hell of an owie, you will have the best of all worlds.  Israel will be either demolished or so devastated as to be unable to defend or even rehabilitate  itself.

You'll finally be able to send Israel to corner (bad boy that it is) for making Iran carry out it's threat to wipe Israel off of the map, and best of all since at that point the canary is dead, the EUniks and an Obama led US will know they really really do have a problem with a nuclear Iran that gee whiz doesn't seem to respond to "tough diplomacy" (at least while much of Europe, to say nothing of Russia and China, carry on a thriving trade with Iran).

For the record I disagree with CRS9TNR's analysis, but not for the reasons that seem to underlie your comments.  But that will come in a separate posting.

hg

EU-niks - Teplukhinlike giggle.

CRS9TNR,

I don't think the economic mess per se is a major factor in either a US decision and / or an Israeli decision what to do regarding Iran.

Bush, Rice & Gates were giving Israel broad hints already in the Spring of '08 that hitting Iran's nuclear facilities was becoming less and less likely.  By the end of the summer of '08 (and before 17 September) the hints were becoming less hints and more point-blank statements.  Perhaps the economic crashed exacerbated the situation but the decision was cast long before that.

As far as an Obama - Biden preemptive strike on Iran, well I think you'd have a better chance of having a snowball fight in hell first.  Keep in mind that it's Biden who said that Israel will just have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran (and yes, he did say that, Marty Peretz's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding).  During the VP debates Biden also downplayed the seriousness of a nuclear Iran by stating that Pakistan also is a Muslim nuclear power too and Israel manages to live with that. (Homework assignment:  Can you list all the differences from Israel's perspective between dealing with a nuclear Pakistan versus a nuclear Iran?  Obviously Biden can't and it seems that a less-than-intellectually honest TNR staff is trying to keep you from peeking behind the curtain lest you realize that the wizard is really a humbug.)

Bottom line: O-B ain't gonna do nuttin and they ain't gonna ask the Bushies to do it for them because they fear it will create too much of a mess to clean up at the start of the "Change" administration.

As far as Israel doing the job itself.  That is still theoretically possible  but I am increasingly skeptical for a number of reasons.

First of all, if Israel decided to take a bite out of Iran's nuclear facilities it will do just that and and not hit proxy targets in Syria and / or Lebanon.  Destroying a proxy does nothing to mitigate the Iranian nuke threat.  Damaging enough of the Iranian facilities enough to put them out of commission for 2-4 years (which is the most an Israeli attack -- as opposed to a US or US+Israeli attack -- could achieve).  There is a broad consensus in Israel that Iran's nukes need to be dealt with, preferably by the "International Community", but if they won't then Israel should take care of its own security needs.  This translates into a grim understanding by the general public that we have to do what needs to be done -- and pay the price.  But only if Israel hits the actual targets and not nearby proxies.

If Syria or Lebanon (i.e., Hezbollah) retaliate for Iran then they can be dealt with but hopefully S&L or at least Syria will realize they have little to gain and much to lose by doing Iran's post-denuclearization dirty work (e.g., Damascus is within artillery range of the Golan).  Hezbollah may be too deep into the Khomeinist 12-er eschatology to care about consequences.

But there are several problems with Israel de-fanging Iran, at least at this point. For starters, the USA has refused to cooperate by providing Israel with the necessary "Friend or Foe" transponder codes for the Israeli fighter-bombers.  This means that Israel could not take the short route flying over Iraq but would have to take the longer more circuitous routes around Saudi Arabia and / or possibly via Turkey, assuming (and it's a tenuous assumption at that) Turkey agrees to go along.  That also means that Israel can forget about using Iraq as a base or even as an emergency landing strip for any of the aircraft hit by Iranian air defenses.  Under these conditions Israel could well lose about a third or more of the aircraft and pilots sent in.  Given that the attack would have conducted in waves against many targets, large numbers of aircraft would be needed which means large numbers of losses.

Second the Israeli leadership is in flux.  When Olmert resigned about a month ago, he took down the whole government with him -- on paper.  What this means is that Olmert and his government became a caretaker government whose powers are limited by dealing only with urgent needs and matters which are not irreversible.  Olmert & his government remain in this situation either until Livni can form a new government or a new government is formed as a result of elections.  Olmert, having lost all of his "street cred" & political backing is highly unlikely to attempt an attack an Iran unless he received credible intelligence that Iran was about to cross a point of no-return.  Even then, given his disastrous performance in Lebanon2, I don't see him doing it.

As far as Livni goes, she has about another two weeks (i.e., about 6 weeks from when she received the mandate from the President) to form a government.  If she is unable to do so within that time frame then Israel goes to elections within 90 days.  Theoretically the Prez Perez could ask someone else to try to form a government but for a variety of reasons that is unlikely to happen.

In the run up to the elections, Olmert remains "caretaker" PM.  If he is indicted during this period (a distinct possibility) he may step aside physically (assuming the law permits a "caretaker" PM to do so; it's not clear that it does), in which case Livni would become the acting caretaker PM.  She might be tempted to attack the Iranian nukes as sort a re-enactment of Begin's famous 1981 pre-election hit on the Iraqi reactor in Osirak.  But given the limited nature of her mandate, I don't think she would.

Expected outcome of the election:  Netanyahu forms the next government.  That will probably take 4-6 weeks and unless the US relents and gives Israel the "Friend or Foe" codes (in other words, McCain by some miracle is elected president), I don't think he'll want to start his administration with an attack on Iran, given the losses it is sure to entail unless credible intelligence forces his hand.

Another point.  A recent foreign policy article by an ex-British defense minister argued that at all costs Israel must be stopped from attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities.  That means there is going to be a lot pressure (sticks) sweetened with all sorts of empty promises (virtual carrots) applied to whomever is PM, Olmert, Livni, or Netanyahu.  O or L won't be able to withstand that pressure.  Netanyahu might but might not, particularly if Obama is trying his hand at "tough diplomacy".

All this adds up to giving Iran the time it wants and needs to enrich enough uranium & fashion it into a nuke.  So all in all I expect Iran will get what they want -- status as a nuclear power & maybe a chance to actually use it.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

Ginzy,

Good points all.  I think you are a little too shaken and it's not that bad, but I am not in Jerusalem.

Question:  If Iran declares themselves a nuclear state, would Israel take that opportunity to declare themselve a nuclear power?  Are their other allied nations they would work with?

While Israel is very dependent on American Aid & Arms, wouldn't they also have other options to defend against a nuclear Iran?

"I think you are a little too shaken and it's not that bad, but I am not in Jerusalem."

What a cynical comment. Ginzy has just described the first stages being set up for Israel's annihilation, and  CRS9TNR expresses a quiet satisfaction. As if israelis  are too confident and smug, as if they have not lived for a few generations now in a state of being a "little shaken"..

Noga (are you or your parents Israeli?),

I don't think CRS9TNR was expressing quiet satisfaction.  Rather he was just trying to say humorously (unsuccessfully) that I exaggerating and panicking a bit.  Actually I am being coldly calculating, refusing to fall into the role of the delusional useful idiocy and Sabbtean-like messianism that has taken control of much of the Democratic Party.

CRS9TNR, responding to some of your questions:

Will Israel declare itself a nuclear power?  Who knows?  Your question assumes that Israel IS a nuclear power.   While that is widely believed and may be the case, when push comes to shove, I don't know that it is really true.

Other allied nations? Yeah who?  The soft-power besotted EU-niks?  An important lesson from WWII -- few countries if any will really want to risk its soldiers to come to the aid of another country unless they themselves are threatened.  At most you'll see some token military force with strict orders to stay out of danger.  See Czechoslovakia and Poland before Churchill came to power in Britain.

BTW, an interesting and thoughtful OpEd piece in today's Washington Post on why the next president needs to deal with the Iranian problem urgently and 5 issues that need to be addressed.  Number 4:

"Fourth, so that Israel does not feel compelled to take unilateral action, the next president must credibly convince Jerusalem that the United States will not allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability."  If Obama wins this is already a dead issue.  Biden has already indicated in several ways that Israel will just have to learn how to live with a nuclear Iran.  And some of the articles other requirements are simply not achievable at least within a time frame that could make a difference.  Read the whole piece here:  www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008102203005.html

Israel is actually less dependent on the US for arms than it used to be; much of what the army uses is made or could be made here.  "Heavy" items (fighter jets, helicopters, some naval ships, subs) are usually purchased from the USA (with aid) or elsewhere (the Germans still know how to make good u-boats), although Israeli fire control systems and the like are often added (US Apache helicopters use Israeli IR sites).  The Arrow anti-missile system is a joint Israel-USA project.

Other options for defending against a nuclear attack? Such as what?  As far as I know there are only three ways to defend against a nuclear attack:

a)  Defang the nuclear enemy by destroying or severely damaging its ability to produce or "deliver" (what a euphemism!!) a nuclear weapon.  I've explained above why the US won't do that and why it is become less likely (at least for now)  that Israel will try.

b)  Defense systems:  Israel has the Arrow anti-missile system which works well but not defensive system is 100%.  However it does improve your odds somewhat, unless the enemy can overwhelm it with many multiple simultaneous missile launches, only a few of which need to be nuclear tipped.

c)  Deterrence otherwise known as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.  For MAD to work (as it did during the Cold War) it has to be all three Mutual, i.e., the country hit first needs to be able to launch a second strike after suffering a devastating nuclear hit, against its attacker.  Alternatively a proxy country could provide the second strike..  It has to be Assured, i.e., 100% certainty that it will occur, and there has to be Destruction i.e., that the second strike destroys most or much of the country that launched the first strike.  OK, so let's examine all three

Mutual -  Even assuming that Israel has nukes, it is far from clear that we have second strike capability or enough of one that would make a difference to an Iran that would be willing to absorb a nuclear hit just to get rid of Israel (see the "moderate" Ayatollah Rafsanjani's remarks of about 7-10 years ago).  The USA could serve as the mutuality proxy, but that leads to the second problem.

Assured - If Israel were hit and wanted to launch a second strike (assuming it could) it would be under severe pressure from the "enlightened" "International Community" not to do so... innocent Iranians will be killed, oil prices will go sky high, revenge is so uncivilized, and if you want that badly needed aid to rebuild Israel and deal with all the dead and injured well we just won't be able to help if you, Israel are being so uncool as to hit Iran back.  Just one scenario of many others like it.

As far as the USA providing the proxy second strike, Obama took that off of the table a long time ago, during his primary battle with Hillary Clinton.

Destruction - that makes a difference to the Iranians - Again, it depends on who is doing the second strike.  If Israel, the Iranians believe they could absorb it ("Allah will know His "own"").  The USA, coul devastate Iran (FWIW, Hillary said she would).  Under the best of circumstances Obama might launch a token missile targeted in some sparsely populated part of Iran so he could say he did something and now lets move on to a "diplomatic (final) solution".  And frankly I don't even think he would do that much.  Let's be honest, using military force is just not part of Obama's make-up.  Stop deluding yourselves.

But even if MAD could be credibly put it place would it deter the Iranians?  Probably not.  They are not the atheistic Soviets; rather they want to bring the return of the Mahdi.  They want to hasten his return, "the prefect human who will lead the world in wisdom and the ways of Islam".  This is the core of the 12-er belief that guides the Iranian theocracy.  The return of the Mahdi can be hastened by a devasting war and destruction that envelopes the world (or at least the middle east).  So in Bernard Lewis' famous observation, to the Iranians (at least the 12-ers), MAD is not a Terrance, its an incentive...

Cheers,

Hershel Ginsburg,

Jerusalem / Efrata

"Actually I am being coldly calculating,"

www.securityaffairs.org/.../oren.php

Michael Oren:

"The presidential election of 2008 is arguably the most pivotal for Israel in its 60 years of existence. The next occupant of the White House can immensely influence the course of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, the Syrians, and a range of Arab regimes. He can alter or maintain American policies on Jerusalem, the settlements, and negotiations with Hamas, and influence the shape and nature of any future Palestinian state. By upholding or disavowing preemption or by reducing or augmenting American troop strength in Iraq, he can radically sway the Middle East’s balance of power. Most fatefully, in his determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry, he can fortify Israel’s security, if not ensure its survival.

The candidates offer a distinct set of policy choices to voters concerned with Israel, irrespective of what they think is “best” for it. In casting their ballots, though, Americans should be mindful of the fact that a President’s ability to pursue any course of action in the Middle East is greatly limited by events and circumstances in the region. Political upheaval in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, the recrudescence of large-scale civil strife in Iraq or Lebanon, the acceleration of Iran’s uranium enrichment program—all would mitigate the chances for an American peace initiative, for troop withdrawals, and non-violent action against Iran. In such cases, presidential platforms will be overshadowed by the need for crisis-mode decision-making, for projecting power and exercising prudence. Ultimately, Israel is best served by a President capable of grappling with rapid and often turbulent change. Pro-Israel voters, then, should be less concerned with which candidate, John McCain or Barack Obama, favors or opposes settlements or is open or opposed to dialogue with Iran, but which is the ablest leader. "

Noga,

With all due respect to Michael Oren, HOW a given president grapples "with rapid and often turbulent change" is heavily influenced by their beliefs, philosophies, prejudices, biases, and mindset.  Even assuming that both Obama and McCain have a more or less equal track record of being able to deal with a rapidly changing situations, I don't think they would both react the same way to say Iran testing a nuke or Hezbollah triggering another conflict with Israel or Russia establishing a presence in the Caribbean with Venezuelan cooperation.

So yes, events will often force a president's hand but which hand and in which direction has a lot to do with individual and his / her ideology.

שבת שלום

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem