Benny Morris goes nuclear
While leafing through the New York Times this morning, I first turned, as usual, to the Opinion section, and the featured "contributor" piece on the Op-Ed page was enough to put a palpable chill on an otherwise warm summer's morning. Namely, Israeli historian Benny Morris's rather bland and matter-of-fact invocation of thermonuclear war:
"Using bombs to stave off war"
I'm not sure what was more disturbing: Morris's unquestioning acceptance of the "suicidal fanatics" view of the Iranian leadership, his blandly confident unconcern about the fallout (literal and figurative) from the consequences of a pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, or, worst of all, the equally blasé attitude about the prospect of "...an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland". One can almost sense the shrug.
I'm not sure how much influence Benny Morris wields on opinion (public or official) in Israel; or how much traction this ho-hum just-another-day-in-the-struggle-so-nuke-'em approach to the "threat" from Iran has with the bulk of (or any) Israelis. But, for whatever reason, the New York Times saw fit to give this man valuable Op-Ed space to air this view. Unfortunately, I have to take that as an admission that Morris's opinions aren't all that far off the deep-end after all. And that thought is, perhaps, the chilliest of all.
PS: I was originally going to title this diary "Benny Morris freaks out", but I realized that that assessment was quite off-the-mark. The most disturbing point in this column, I realized, wasn't his (IMO) hysterical overassesment of the "Iranian threat", or even his shockingly humdrum invocation of nuclear war in the Middle East. It was the fact that this casually apocalyptic thesis he lays out wasn't an overwrought rant: but a carefully measured, and superficially "rational" scenario. Cold.
--
- Jay C's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference
Related Sites -
Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)
Foreign Affairs -
Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece
Politics -
Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net
War -
Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog
Economics and Business -
Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture
Science and Tech -
Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb
Legal -
Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy
Sports -
Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist
Books, Film and Music -
Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide
News and Aggregators -
Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post
References -
Maybe this is some kind of diversion to prevent us from discussing events that are really happening in Israel, as we speak. There are leftists who are talking about the Hezbollah prisoner exchange:
On July 16, a prisoners exchange took place between the governments of Israel and the Hezbollah. Israel has returned 199 bodies of Hezbollah fighters, and five live soldiers to Lebanon in exchange for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers who were killed on an occupied territory on the border between Israel and Lebanon. The government of Lebanon stated that “the agreement marks a nig failure to Israel’s tactics and policies.”
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/18/18517291.php
Everybody at the Forvm is discussing an historian's NYT op-ed. But in Lebanon, Hezbollah's leader, Nazrallah, makes a rare public appearance crowing victory. Apparently there is not much jubilation in Israel - bellicose words fill an embarrassed silence.
--http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iyoZPOX9e4QTofWl-KvnPbhD5Jjg
Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)I'm not. And it's gotten nothing but negative press AFAICT, particularly if those in fact were the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers whos kidnapping started the Lebanon invasion in the first place. And the five prisoners aren't insignificant criminals, either. The end Of Ehud Barak, maybe?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Israel/Hezbollah prisoner exchanges are nothing new. But it is strange that Israel seems to be taking such a hardline stance against Hezbollah's friend and sponsor. Threats of attacks on Iran are rather ill-timed seeing as how the US is just now talking about opening up the embassy once again in Teheran.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVp6OcsznLJpeFv8SenE_EhxIpmgD91VQ44O0
Interesting too that Bush is talking about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.
Against these developments and last year's CIA report on Iran, Israel's recent exercises and Morris' op-ed looks out of step with the US administration.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Side questions -- not rhetorical; I'm hoping someone who knows the answers will educate me:
1) Given Iran's claim of how important energy self-sufficiency is to them, why doesn't Iran build (or build more) refineries so they can refine their oil into gasoline rather than importing gasoline?
2) Can Iran's oil be used to power all the same things that nuclear energy would?
3) If #2 is "yes", does that invalidate any argument from Iran that nuclear energy is needed on the basis of national security or fundamental economic security, even if developing and producing nuclear power and selling more of their oil (instead of using more of it domestically) would be better economically for Iran?
- Login or register to post comments
)Iran would be foolish to burn their oil in order to generate electricity. Countries that have other options try to avoid using oil for electricity generation. It's just not cost effective. Natural gas is a different story though and Iran has plenty of that.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would need to be told that Iran's theocracy wants the bomb. Peaceful nuclear energy, in Iran's case, is what could politely be termed eyewash.
Possession of a bomb gives plenty of leverage. Examples - India, Pakistan, Israel.
Israel doesn't "need" a bomb either. Just having it has provided them all the security they need against conventional armies.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )What about the basic sovereign freedom of action reason for Iran wanting to develop a civilian nuclear power program?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why would 2) invalidate the economic reason?
I made a distinction between economic benefit and "fundamental economic security". The former means a little higher GDP, maybe lower inflation, a little higher standard of living, etc. The latter means no economic meltdown/depression, hyperinflation, riots in the streets, etc., and arguably not even getting close to such a state.
What about the basic sovereign freedom of action reason for Iran wanting to develop a civilian nuclear power program?
Please elaborate/explain.
Are you simply saying that it is their right as a sovereign nation (which would not really be a reason for Iran "wanting" to do it, only that you think they have a "right" to do it)? If that is your argument, wouldn't that apply to Iran developing nuclear weapons, too?
Or are you saying that without nuclear power they will lose some "freedom of action" and will thus lose sovereignty in some way?
Or something else?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )not under the present circumstances, because Iran is a signatory of the NPT, and would at the least have to provide 90 days notice if it wished to withdraw.
In practice Iran has arguably already violated the NPT, as the link discusses.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dang, I meant to check if they were a signatory to the NPT and if so, acknowledge that and say that they'd have to withdraw first. In any case, the sovereignty argument still applies, since they have the sovereign right to withdraw from the treaty and THEN develop nuclear weapons.
So my question to Spartacvs still stands. I want to know if Spartacvs is implying that no nation should take action -- military or non-military (e.g., sanctions) -- to prevent any other nation from developing or maintaining any type of arsenal (in ascending order of scariness: chemical, biological/nuclear [potential tie], doomsday device a la Dr. Strangelove, 1980s Top 40 compilation album, 1970s Top 40 compilation album)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )either unilaterally or as part of a larger group. But in no case can I envision a legal basis for denying a sovereign nation the means to develop nuclear power for civilian purposes.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I thought my question was clear, but I'll try again.
I repeat:
I want to know if Spartacvs is implying that no nation should take action -- military or non-military (e.g., sanctions) -- to prevent any other nation from developing or maintaining any type of arsenal (...chemical, biological[,] nuclear...)
ok, let's put aside "nuclear power for civilian purposes". That's clearly not what I've asked you about. (Straw man foul on that one)
And please don't just say that nations "will" do X, since it's clear I'm asking you if you're saying that a nation "should not" do X. (Evasiveness foul on that one)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nuclear power for peaceful civilian purposes, they cross the line only when such infrastructure is used to develop nuclear weaponry.
My position is that persuasion has worked better than coercion and we should be able to accommodate Iran's strategic security needs thro. negotiation.
You started this thread by questioning that Iran had sound economic reasons for developing a civilian nuclear power program, answer none is needed or required.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are you saying that if Iran were to begin development of nuclear weapons (even after withdrawing from the NPT), you would NOT necessarily say it is wrong for another nation to strike Iran militarily even though Iran has all the rights of a sovereign nation?
I'm not asking you what is the best approach, I'm not asking you if striking Iran would be good strategy, I'm just asking you if you think it is inherently wrong ("wrong" either philisophically/morally or because you see it as a violation of sovereignty/international law and consider such a violation to inevitably have net harmful consequences) for one nation to strike another militarily because the latter is developing nuclear weapons (assuming for the sake of argument that there is little to no doubt of this fact). I'm asking that question in general, and about Iran in particular.
And if your answer is that it would be wrong, then I have the same question with regard to non-military measures (e.g., economic sanctions).
Please answer those questions as directly as possible. To recap the questions and make it easy to keep track and answer them all directly without my having to repeat them (again), assuming it is known with virtual certainty that a nation/Iran is developing nuclear weapons:
1) Would military strike in general necessarily be wrong?
2) Would military strike on Iran necessarily be wrong?
3) Would non-military measures necessarily be wrong?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is a bad idea. One reason is being it hasn't been done before.
I'm not convinced why Iran's possession of the bomb is particularly any worse than, say, Pakistan's possession of the same - except to the somewhat paranoid leaders of Israel. Russia is on Iran's border, and it doesn't seem particularly perturbed.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If Iran somehow obtained a twenty-five megaton hydrogen bomb and detonated it above Moscow, Russia would still exist as a nation even though its capital had been obliterated, and it would have the luxury of deciding exactly how to retaliate. A bomb a tenth that size--or several smaller ones--would more or less annihilate Israel as a nation and would leave massive retaliation with whatever nukes survived the destruction as the only step to take.
It's not paranoid to expect that a nation will do what its elected leaders have been announcing they are eager to do--wipe Israel off the map. If the real powers in Iran are allowing their head flunky to make announcements in its name that cause a nuclear-armed nation to fear for its survival, then the possibly horrific consequences are on their heads.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ah, disproportional, whether it was Israel, Russia, the Chinese or this country that was attacked by Iran. There's something to be said for an object lesson to others lin that particular arena.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My point is that the options of a nation that has lost one of many major cities are less limited than those of one that has lost the majority of its population and/or land area from a similar attack. While the most brutal response might be the blindingly swift counterattack, this doesn't have to necessarily be the case. . .revenge is a dish best served cold and all that jazz.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Iran is only one of Israel's many hostile neighbours. If Israel used their remaining arsenal in a massive retaliation on Iran, then what would they use to deter attacks from the other nations? Rather than retaliate against only Iran, perhaps they might be tempted to shower the entire region with their nukes.
Russia would not have to do this as it maintains friendly relations with its neighbours for the most part. In any case, I see no reason why the Russians wouldn't respond with a devastating attack on Iran if Moscow was destroyed.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No offense, but if that was intended as a response to my questions, ya' got my questions wrong on two counts. First, I was asking about a question regarding a nation developing nuclear weapons, but moreover, I was not asking about strategy, but rather whether or not it would necessarily be the "wrong" thing to do philisophically/morally, and/or based on the belief that such a violoation of sovereignty/international law would inevitable have net harmful consequences.
If that wasn't intended as a response to my questions, well...
That one was for the over-40 crowd, which, as far as I know, is Hank and me. Hank, if you're out there, can you name that SNL character?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As soon as the country has access to the technology and raw materials, and more importantly an urgent necessity to nucealrise, I'd say it was nuclearised.
Any Iranian government, democratic or otherwise, not appointed by the US has a valid historical reason to fear invasion by the US. Naturally, it will do everything in its capacity to acquire nuclear weapons technology, as this is the only way it can be reasonably sure (though not absolutely sure) that it won't be invaded.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )ok, so semantics aside, if we're both talking about a nation in general, and then Iran in particular, assuming it is known with virtual certainty that the nation is developing nuclear weapons:
1) Would military strike in general necessarily be wrong*?
2) Would military strike on Iran necessarily be wrong*?
3) Would non-military measures necessarily be wrong*?
* not "wrong" as a matter of strategy, but either philisophically/morally, or based on the assumption that such a violoation of sovereignty would inevitably (eventually) cause net harm.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but we are certainly not the only ones here over 40, and I'm not nearly the only one here over 50. Don't let these guys fool you, they're just trying to appear hip and younger than they are.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Give that man a bottle of Geritol. And since he's gonna celebrate with a big dinner, give him some "plop, plop, fizz, fizz" too.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm lately weighing the pros 'n cons of getting a replacement hip!
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )LOL!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I thought my comments were pretty specific enough thanks, so I'll pass on the cheese prize.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Geez, and I broke it down and laid it out so nicely for you (in hopes of getting clear answers and getting them without having to continue repeating the questions).
Are straight answers not your thing in general? just with me? when you're worried you'll end up at some dead end (to use your labrynth analogy), meaning a point at which you have to either give an answer you don't want to give, contradict yourself, be evasive, or abandon ship (ok, mixed metaphor)?
Otherwise, I really don't think I'm asking for too much, assuming this is a place where people discuss matters (issues, principles, facts, logic, theories, etc.), and when someone takes a position, he's willing to clarify it and defend it (or adjust his position if he can't defend it).
But if for some reason this exchange is a kitchen with heat you can't take (not that it should be; I really didn't think I was getting rough), I won't ask you to stay in it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You'd be a complete disaster, perhaps DHS - keeper of the surgical gloves would be more your line.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Um, guess what? Where you ARE is on a political blog. As I said, I kinda think this is a place where, if someone states a position on an issue, he's willing to clarify it, defend it, or, if he can't defend it as is, modify it.
Maybe you consider this a place where someone states a position and avoids all of the above while claiming to have already done all that apply.
Forgive me for sticking with my concept of what this place is.
But you probably have one thing right with your surgical gloves metaphor. Based on your apparent fear of engaging me, seems you think that if you did engage me I'd tear you a new one. Not my intent, but I can't say it wouldn't happen.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Dumb question. In general of course it would be inherently wrong, unless it could be justified as self defense.
So the question becomes can an attack on Iran in the absence of a concerted effort to resolve the situation using other means, be justified by the attacker in terms of self defense?
See Iraq - invasion of.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol, you call my question "dumb", and in the process of doing so, you demonstrate that you don't understand it. Dictionary.com can help you with big words like "inherently". And then try to acquire the ability to grasp the essence of a question (something you've once again demonstrated that you lack). And then make a good-faith effort to give a direct answer.
Done with you, at least for tonight, and on this topic, unless you say something more conducive to an intelligent, productive discussion.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )End.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )oh, and by the way, the only "labrynth" here was created as you crafted straw men and used vague, evasive language rather than just giving a straight answer to a straight question.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as a signatory to the NNPT to develop domestic nuclear energy. As long as they let the IAEA in to monitor their facilities, what they are doing is entirely within the bounds of what the treaty allows.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to be posting similar responses at almost the same time.
The wasted effort is a pity. Perhaps we should alternate days posting =P
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I kid, I kid. I'm glad you left that little backwater to come hang out with the varsity kids.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is one of the "new historians" who has been extremely critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and is thus often cited positively by many liberals. So his statements here ought to give pause to those inclined to believe that the tension with Iran is the result of neocon warmongering.
In fact Iran has made and continues to make choices with its nuclear program that understandably create the impression that it is seeking at least the capability to create nuclear weapons.
Such weapons would pose little threat to us, so even in the worst-case scenario we as Americans can convince ourselves that an Iran with the bomb is tolerable. However, Israel doesn't have the luxury of distance, and it has every reason to question the rationality of the Iranian leaders.
If Iran truly has no intention of creating a nuclear weapon, and if the leaders of Iran are indeed acting in the best interests of their citizens, then Iran will take steps to reassure Israel that it cannot and will not seek the bomb, before Israel feels compelled to strike.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
)Well said, Brendan.
I enjoyed Jay C's eloquence in this diary, but then I read Morris' op-ed and I don't agree with the argument of the diary (to the extent that there even is any substantive argument, which is not much).
Yes, the op-ed is fairly detached in terms of emotion, but I don't fault Morris for that. I think the horrors of nuclear war are self-evident. And I think he lays out his premises/logic/arguments/conclusion/opinion in a sober and rational manner, whether one disagrees with him on any or all points.
And I don't find Morris' premises implausible at all, nor his logic necessarily flawed, although there are more scenarios that could be gamed out than those he provides.
In fact, unless I missed it, he leaves out an important point that would have strengthened his argument: that another reason the effectiveness of the deterrent of mutually-assured destruction may be limited is because Iran need not launch a nuke from it's own territory, but could supply nukes to a third party (perhaps not clearly traceable to Iran as the supplier), and at some point could conceivably supply "suitcase nukes"* that could find their way to Israeli cities and Defense sites (the latter also raising the prospect of a preemptive strike that could render deterrence moot). So basically there could be a nuclear strike not traceable to Iran (unless I'm ignorant of the forensic ability to do so), and there might not be an Israel left with retaliatory capability (or left at all), and even if the U.S. determines that the nukes that destroyed Israel were probably supplied by Iran (and how certain would we have to be to justify in our minds and in the world's eyes incinerating millions of civilians?), if Iran had (or could have) more of these nukes in the hands of folks sitting in U.S. cities, would the U.S. necessarily nuke (or even conventionally strike) Iran?
This situation is clearly of the "no good options" variety. Morris' argument should be taken very seriously, and those who knock it should address its premises and logic, seek to refute its validity, and argue for what they deem to be a better approach. Simply criticizing Morris for seeming insufficiently emotional about the consequences of nuclear war and calling his assessment of the Iranian threat a "hysterical overassesment" doesn't cut it in my book.
* I don't know how much more time, if any, it would take for them to make a "suitcase" nuke (small enough to carry by hand or to conceal in a car or truck and detonate on site), but in any case, once Iran has nuclear weapons of any sort, striking them becomes much more risky/costly.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )a country finds a truly untraceable way to obtain the uranium ore or yellowcake to refine (very, very unlikely), the isotope ratios and impurities make it easy to identify the source of the bomb.
Also, only the US and Russia currently have the resources and knowledge to make any sort of miniaturized bomb.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for the tech info.
Just so I'm clear:
1) Is it very, very unlikely that a nuclear weapon that Iran had supplied could be fired at Israel from outside Iran or detonated within Israel without the ability to trace it back to Iran with virtual certainty?
2) Can the same be assumed for 5, 10, 20 years from now?
3) Re: minitaturized bombs, are you just referring to a bomb small enough to carry literally by hand, or are you including any nuclear bomb (and I don't mean dirty bomb) that could be easily concealed and transported in a vehicle and detonated on site?
4) And re: #3, if Iran develops nuclear weapons of any sort, do we have any idea of the probability of Iran then developing the capability to produce such small, mobile, on-site-detonatable nuclear bombs (perhaps with the help of outside "advisors"/info/materials/equipment) in 5, 10, 20 years?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but my understanding is
1. There aren't that many uranium mines (and none in the Middle East), they are tightly controlled, and the "signature" of chemical and nuclear isotopes that make up the ore at each mine is well known. Iran would have to find a source of ore that no one else knows about, or have the ability to import tons of ore without anyone knowing about it.
2. I don't see this changing over time, in fact security will probably get even tighter.
3 & 4. You can look through this list, so far only the US and Russia have anything that weighs less than about 1000 kg. There are much smaller ones that were developed, but some of the smallest would have an explosion similar to a truck bomb. It's really incredibly difficult to design a very small reliable bomb, my guess is much harder to develop that to acquire an existing one. I'm not sure if China has the ability to develop one right now, but since they have a lot more experience and a much larger pool of highly educated engineers they probably could if they wanted to.
Now, a semi can carry up to about 40,000 kg, so it could theoretically deliver almost any kind of warhead. There would be the small problem of driving it from Iran to Israel undetected, though. I know the US (and I assume Israel) have radiation detectors that can detect radioactive materials quite easily.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, like most of the moderately-informed (I guess) - I had had the notion of Benny Morris as being a vaguely "dovish" sort (for what that estimation is worth - not much, apparently). Based, I can see now, solely on his revisionist approach to the "founding myths" of the creation of Israel.
But: as even a cursory look at his standard biography shows, Morris's views aren't so neatly pigeonholed.
But, brendan, it is precisely the notion of an Israeli "compulsion to strike" that I find disturbing - especially so given Morris's seemingly cavalier attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. He seems to take it for granted (as do so many others), that if the Iranian regime does manufacture a working nuclear bomb, it is a certainty that they will immediately ship it to Tel Aviv and set it off, regardless of the consequences. And that the "certainty" of this - and its consequent "justification" for a proposed Israeli attack that I find most disturbing. Since there is no "guarantee" that an Iranian Bomb will be anything more than a counterproductive waste of resources on their part (errr, except, of course, as a deterrent against the sort of nuclear attack Morris so casually proposed).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )He seems to take it for granted (as do so many others), that if the Iranian regime does manufacture a working nuclear bomb, it is a certainty that they will immediately ship it to Tel Aviv and set it off, regardless of the consequences.
That's a reasonable interpretation, but a more charitable/justifiable explanation for Israel feeling compelled to act would be not that they are certain Iran would use a nuclear weapon against them, but that they uncertain enough that Iran won't that they feel they can't afford to wait and see.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )casual talk about using nuclear bombs is probably one of the biggest reasons for proliferation problems. If one were ever used "pre-emptively" there's be no going back, every country that could beg, borrow or steal one would get one ASAP.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )from the readers suggest he really missed his target audience.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
). . .he got exactly the responses he wanted. Time will tell which is the case.*
*--and I might, after the Olympics.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I can see that possibility as well.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Care to elaborate, airechail? I've read through the whole lengthy comment thread at the NYT site, and they seem to fall about 75-25% towards castigation: first, Benny Morris for being a warmongering lunatic, and secondly, at the Times for putting it up on the Op-Ed page.
What do you think the "target audience" was?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )my 1st thought was that folks tend to write to the audience. Consequently, commentary tends to be submitted to media with a generally sympathetic clientele. This clearly failed that test.
I don't know anything about him, but I trust he's a better historian than strategist.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Morris believes that since the beginning of the state, Israel has systematically lied to its people and either forged or destroyed records to minimize atrocities committed against the Palestinians. Examples can be found online of him mis-quoting original sources, and he's a big fan of the ellipsis. But that said, I don't doubt his sincerity. Being a revisionist historian means always being in the minority, and relishing it. I'd be interested to see how his NYT piece is playing in Haaretz or some of the other Israel MSM.
That said, his belief that the Iranians can be thwarted by dropping a few (or even a lot of) bombs in the general vicinity of Tehran seems hopelessly naive to me. There's been a steady stream of military intel types on TV and radio over the last few weeks talking about the difficulty in actually using force against the Iranians without getting random violence along the Strait, in Iraq, at Ras Tanura and so on in return. The only answer seems to be a massive, carefully timed series of strikes that take out Iran's anti-ship missile bases and anti-aircraft batteries, cripple its military command and control, and hit several hardened targets where the nuke program is located, some of which are in the middle of large cities. A task that seems far beyond the Israelis' ability to do on their own.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Distance, size of target etc. Methinks if it is to happen then it will happen only as a part of an US invasion.
Which is also very likely, it is true, but probably very unlikely to be a permanent occupation - as in Iraq.
- Login or register to post comments
)