Friday, February 3, 2012

A Strange Question about Israel and Iran

The Washington Post is running a poll on their front page that asks this question:
If Israel attacks Iran, should the United States come to Israel's defense? 
Wait. So Israel might be about to attack Iran, and the Post's editors want to know if we should then "come to Israel's defense"? Aren't they the attacker in this scenario? If attacking Iran poses some grave threat to them, they can avoid that threat by not attacking Iran.

What form would this "defense" take? I think I know the answer the neocons at the Post have in mind, which would be sending our planes to bomb Iran some more, finishing what Israel began. And I say that does not fit my definition of coming to an ally's defense.

Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb; I think only silly pacifists deny this. But I don't see what right Israel has to object, since they already have about 200 A-bombs of their own. If Israel has a right to a bomb, why doesn't Iran? Yes, Israel has been attacked several times by its neighbors, but Iran was attacked by Iraq not so long ago, and all they have to do is open the Post to see that many Americans want to attack them tomorrow. They have the same right to self-defense as any other nation. I would prefer a world without more nuclear-armed countries, but as long as we are going around the world, invading countries and overthrowing their governments, we have to expect that they will acquire whatever weapons they need to defend themselves.

If I were an Iranian, I would want my country to have nuclear weapons, because it is the only way to guarantee that they won't be invaded by America and subjected to the same kind of horror as the Iraqis.

As for the notion that the Iranian leadership is a bunch of irrational Armageddon-minded fanatics, I don't buy it. Iran has been around for 2,500 years old, an old and stable society. It's leaders sometimes talk tough, for domestic political reasons, just like Americans politicians sometimes do. They will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons, knowing what would then happen to their country.

The lesson of the Cold War is that deterrence works. The lesson of history is that war is hell. Paranoid Israelis should settle down, and Americans should do all we can to discourage their aggression.

2 comments:

xyetay said...

Some of Iran's leaders say they intend to destroy Israel. If they have a nuke do you think they will not use it? My guess is that if they have a nuke they are likely to use it directly or more likely give it to someone they think believe will use it while they try to deny any association.

Perhaps the idea that if they do use it they know that several of their cities will also die might stop them.

But if you are Israel why take that chance. "It's only fair." isn't very persuasive when your existence is threatened.

John said...

Leaders of countries have been threatening to destroy other countries for as long as there have been countries. It rarely happens. More to point, it has never happened for countries with nuclear weapons. The US and the Soviets used to threaten each other on a regular basis, but MAD kept anything from ever happening.

Nobody has a right to perfect safety. I believe all Americans over the age of 30 have some moral standing on this issue, since we lived under the constant threat of nuclear attack. It is not a great situation but it is a livable one.