The Spine - All Comments

re: History, Mind and Palestine

liberal reformer — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:37:06 GMT

JPKatz: Excellent post. I read Rebecca Goldstein's magnificent book on Godel a couple of years ago; I highly recommend it.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

liberal reformer — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:12:06 GMT

Ginzy: Twelver Shiism has long distressed me. But I don't think the theocratic regime is fueled by apocalyptic notions. Ahminajad is a nutter but he is losing power. I don't believe that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini is prepared to court the incineration of Tehran over principle. Even less, Rafsanjani. I know that they have both made bloodcurdling statements but that phenomenon was not unknown during the Cold War. At the same time, I have no illusions that the theocrats are just like us - they clearly are not. But I do believe that Iran might be contained.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

mollysimon — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:33:23 GMT

Ginzy--I do appreciate your posts, even though I rarely agree with them. However, could you stop doing the horns and tail bit? It's starting to make me cringe. Mostly because it's not that funny. In fact, it's lame. Furthermore, nobody here is accusing Jews of having horns and tails, which makes your little tag-line antagonistic. Are you saying that if I disagree with you I'm a raving anti-Semite (or in my case, a self-hating Jew)?

I probably should just chill, but it's been annoying me for a while.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

boneill — Tue, 13 May 2008 22:00:00 GMT

Hersehl- I'm very familiar with Twelver Theology. And believe me, I am not looking at this with a Western mind. I've spent a lot of time in the Middle East and have met many honest-to-god terrorists and Salafi "thinkers", and know how what Vonnegut called "the cuckoo-clock in hell" mindset works.

I would urge you to read Karim Sadjadpour's article on the rise of Khameni. I know it seems wierd that the Supreme Leader is rising, but his power is increasing while Ahmadinejad's is waning. MM can't call for a nuclear strike.

www.carnegieendowment.org/.../index.cfm

Rafsanjani isn't moderate, at all. What he is is pragmatic. That is how we bring them in line. Credible threats, appealing to them, and understanding their side of history. Not believing it, not kowtowing to it- but getting it.

Damn, I have a lot more. But this office chafes as 5 rolls around.

But I do think saying that one will "annhilate" a country of 70 million people who don't have much say in what thier government does buts the "mad" back into "MAD". We need to be smart. Hillary is trying to show that, as Carville suggested, she is a goddamn polyorchid, but that doesn't make for smart policy.

Enjoying the horn-clashing, Ginzy. Hope the 60th is going well, and the next 60 bring with them peace.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

boneill — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:38:31 GMT

No, butchie, I said it won't buy *you* a tank of gas. We've been out of power for a long time. This time we're taking names and anyone who voted Republican or even so much as watches Lou Dobbs will be strung up and marched along a road of bones.

What?

Sorry- it's been a long primary.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

ginzy — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:37:05 GMT

Boniel,

About 2 years ago TNR published an article by Matthias Kuentzel called (I think) "Ahminajad Demons" (or something like that - I take no responsibility for the spelling) in which Kuentzel explained in detail the apocalyptic "twelver" theology subscribed to Iran's ruling elite, including all the Ayatollahs as well as Mad Mahmoud himself. If you can get a hold of the article, read it. The "Twelvers" strive to hasten the return of the "hidden twelfth imam" by pushing the world into an Armageddon-like strife. The only difference (according to Kuentzel) between Mad Mahmoud on the one hand and the Ayatollahs on the other hand is that MM speaks openly of it and indeed belongs to a "Twelver" sub-cult that is preparing the conditions and infrastructure for the Imam's "blessed" return.

Keep in mind that it was MM's ostensibly moderate (at least according to the omniscient NY Times) predecessor Rafsanjani who openly mused about the possibility of Iran absorbing a 25%-50% hit to its population as a bearable price to pay for eliminating Israel in a nuclear exchange. After all, Allah knows his own. Or as the doyen of Middle Eastern scholars, Bernard Lewis, has said on a number of occasions, the problem with a policy of "M.A.D." (mutually assured destruction) toward Iran is that for the Iranian leadership (not just MM) it's an inducement not a deterrent. In other words, rationality is defined differently by the Iranian leadership.

In theory Iran probably could be forced to halt its nuclear bomb program if the economic sanctions were severe enough and if the price of oil fell back down to $30 a barrel. But the EUniks are too keen on buying natural gas and selling goods to Iran while Russia and China think they are immune. So at the current pace of sanctions, Iran will have uranium enrichment under control long before the sanctions hit the pain level needed to have the desired effect.

And now that Obama has effectively taken military force off of the table (see his reaction to Clinton's promise to annihilate Iran if they attacked Israel with nuclear weapons), why should the Iranians care what he says. In fact, even if Obama had not said what he said, do you really think the Iranians believe that Obama is capable of using decisive military force against them or any other threat for that matter. It's just not credible. He doesn't have that in him.

BTW Syria was quite happy with the situation in Lebanon, chaos and all. They got to run the country and could make Israel bleed at will. You are looking at this with way too Western a mind.

Hershel G.

(etc. etc. etc.)

re: Trouble in Lebanon

liberal reformer — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:24:40 GMT

Boneill: Thank you for the magnanimous comments. I think that the "change " mantra has driven me so crazy that I see messianism where it does not exist.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

butchie b — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:15:09 GMT

bone, say it ain't so! You mean after 18 months in office the Chosen One will not have brought the price of gas back down to pre-W levels, simply be his own force of personality?? I'll be soooo disappointed.

r-ennis - welcome aboard. McCain ain't great, just better than the other guy.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

r-ennis — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:08:20 GMT

I'm with you Butchie. This Democratic primary has (finally) made me - a private sector professional who has defended Cinton and the Democrats in general to my mostly Republican friends - decide to vote Republican. Obama represents the furthest left part of the party.As a result, Bill Clinton has been vilified them as a right winger no better than Rove. And their opinion of Hillary is even worse. Typical of Democrats to turn on their most successful leader in a generation or two.

re: Trouble in Lebanon

boneill — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:05:18 GMT

No offense taken or apology needed, lib ref. Sorry for the cussing. I know you don't see all of us that way, but that has become my default response when people say that. You do your (ex?) candidate proud.

re: Trouble in Lebanon

liberal reformer — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:48:09 GMT

Boneill: I apologize. There is a lot of Obamamania out here, though. I only latched on to Hillary because of my severe reservations about Obama. Now that she is a sinking ship, I am lost.

re: Some Common Sense About Peace

r-ennis — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:46:49 GMT

Recently, someone in the Israel Knesset, I don't remember who, suggested that some primarily Arab border towns within Israel might be ceded to the new Palestinian state in exchange for land occupied by the large settlements adjacent to Jerusalem.

As I recall, the very mention of such a scheme was condemned as racist, even though the intent was to allow residents of that town to retain their Israeli citizenship if they so desired.

Actually, if I were an Israeli Arab, I would also dread having to give up my Israeli citzenship in favor of the abomination that would likely be the Palestinian state. Or any Arab state, for that matter.

re: Lebanon: Take Two

liberal reformer — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:45:45 GMT

Ginzy: Good riposte to boneill. But could we dispense with the pre - WWII analogies? Every conflict does not involve Nazi Germany, actually, only one did and analogies to Chamberlain and Churchill are vastly overdone. Could we wait till Obama is inagaurated (if such happens) to denominate him a Chamberlain (I say this as a resolute opponent of Obama's)?

re: Lebanon: Take Two

boneill — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:41:09 GMT

You win, Butchie. By then it will buy you a tank of gas.

That's topical humor, fellows. Feel free to use it, or to send it to Jay Leno.

Anyway- Ginzy, I am not saying at all that Iran or Syria have no control in Lebanon. They clearly have a lot, and, like most of the Middle East, use Lebanon as a playground for their toxic ideologies. Much like Spain in the 1930s.

But the 1930s parallels end there. To think of Obama as Chamberlain, or Ahmadinejad as Hitler, is also "naivete". For one thing, Hitler had total power. Ahmadinejad does not. His power is rapidly slipping away, and it would not be at all surprising if Rafsanjani comes back into the picture. Should he not be talked to either? You are picturing the fragmented mirror-house of Iran as monolithic, when it is not. The President has surprisingly little say on foriegn policy, anyway. That's why it was (kind of) ok to ignore their overtures in 2003- they were meaningless, practically, coming from Khatami's office.

Yes, Syria would love Hezbollah to have veto power, which is why they have cockblocked Lebanese democracy for two years (ok, much longer, but I am talking post-Rafik). But do you really think incredible violence like from 1975-1990 serves Syrian interests? To share borders of two failed states? I don't see how that would work. Don't you think there is any chance that maybe Kid Asad doesn't fully control his minions?

Also, as I stated above, Syria and Iran are not irrational actors. Iran doesn't have the means nor the real will to jackboot its way across the ME, like Hitler did with Europe. They want to be the dominant regional player- and tha tis something that needs to be avoided. And they use hideous methods and support terrible groups to achieve that. But there are ways of dealing with Iran. Obama is not negotiating with Qaeda or Hezbollah or Hamas. He knows very well what evil is. Bu the also knows that to throw around that term willy-nilly, like a child, is naive and damaging. We've watched that movie for 8 years.

re: Trouble in Lebanon

boneill — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:27:09 GMT

But he is wrong about Obama on the Middle East. Do you know who, were I running for President I would have on a list of people to call for advice? Robert Malloy. And Brezinski. And Daniel Pipes, and Bernard Lewis, and a host of other people who don't agree. Since when did having a range of advisors become a bad thing?

And this Robert Malloy thing is just a bunch of absurd piffle anyway. I think it is good for the President, or a candidate, to know what the hell the leadership of Hamas is thinking and doing. That isn't the same as negotiating with them. Its just another piece of information.