The Logical Fallacies of Appeasing Iran
Cohen’s second error: applying a false comparison between Iran and Pakistan. This point has been raised for years — and as current realities stand, it has never made less sense. Pakistan is an immense challenge, but the problem it poses to the world is one of intrastate warfare: a government incapable or unwilling to impose its sovereignty over all of its territory. In other words, there are factions within Pakistan that are openly hostile to the United States. But the government itself, led by President Zardari, is at least publicly an ally in this joint effort.
In Iran, however, the government itself is openly adversarial. All apparatuses of the state fall under the dominion of Ayatollah Khamenei, a murderous old man who does not think within our geopolitical constructs. Should the Pakistani government ever fall to al-Qaeda-linked clerics, then Cohen’s parallel would make a semblance of sense.
His third error: applying moral equivalence between a liberal democracy and a ruthless theocracy, while advocating Cold War doctrine to an inherently asymmetrical conflict. Israel’s nuclear program is morally and politically superior to Iran’s program, just as France’s nuclear program is acceptable and North Korea’s program is not.
Additionally, deterring what Thomas Friedman once coined “the undeterrables” is impossible, particularly given the fact that Iran could sell or proliferate its nuclear expertise to other rogue entities, black market networks, or terrorist groups. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, one of the last great comedic wits: Iran doesn’t have to shoot the nuclear three-pointer; they could pass off the assist to their teammates, instead.
Which brings us to President Obama, who has consistently and deferentially referred to Iran as the “Islamic Republic” — perhaps subliminally signaling that we seek no regime change and recognize the political legitimacy of the ruling clerics. This is worrisome, especially given the news that Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau indicted Le Fang Wei, a Chinese financier, for duping several American banks and peddling nuclear materials to the mullahs.
Reportedly, Fang Wei set up four bogus import-export companies that worked with six Iranian shell firms, with the largest recipient believed to be a subsidiary of the Iranian defense ministry.
There were some 58 transactions in all, including shipments of banned materials from Beijing to Tehran between 2006 and 2008. Among them: 33,000 pounds of a specialized aluminum alloy (used in long-range missile production), 66,000 pounds of tungsten copper plate (used in missile guidance systems), and 53,900 pounds of maraging steel rods (an incredibly hard metal used in uranium enrichment to make the casings for nuclear bombs).
Herein lies the asymmetry to Iran’s nuclear pursuits: if their military program is shut down, they will continue to secretly weaponize their “civilian” nuclear program; if that is shut down, they will acquire atomic materials through third parties — sometimes, as in this case, from within the borders of the Great Satan itself — and across the black market; if those efforts are stifled, the mullahs will ascertain the bomb from their rogue allies in Pyongyang or elsewhere.
There are many avenues the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad-Rafsanjani regime may travel, all of which must lead to a U.S.-led roadblock at the nuclear intersection. But there is no evidence that this will be the case. More than three years ago, Joe Biden, then in the Senate, told the Israelis they would eventually have to accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Today, Vice President Biden warns Israel not to take action against Iran’s nuclear program.
This is untenable. Mr. Obama must be wary of these insufficient Cohen-like rationalizations and avoid falling prey to their deceptions. He must understand the urgency of the situation, for if he votes “present” on this issue as well, there will be repercussions to pay.
Clairol’s old ad asked the tantalizing question, “Does she, or doesn’t she?” posing the Earth-shaking question of whether some woman dyed her hair or not but subliminally asking all kinds of other questions about said woman and what she does and doesn’t do.
The title question, “Will she, or won’t she?” is similarly packed with innuendo but related to significantly more profound import, namely, Will Israel attack Iran before Iran is nuclear-capable and missile-capable of reducing much of Israel to a glowing, molten puddle.
The stakes are incredibly high, not only for the State of Israel but for the United States, the Mid East, Western Europe, and much of the rest of the globe.
Should Israel stage a pre-emptive assault on Ahmadinejad’s nuclear and nuclear- delivery facilities, it would face a severely adverse reaction from a world and a United Nations which historically haven’t wildly embraced either Jews or their homeland. Should Israel not attack Iran and have one or more of its cities obliterated, its retaliation against Iran would surely be far worse than pre-emptive surgical strikes.
What to do?
To say the geopolitical situation is complex and grave would be gross oversimplification. Israel has often shown it doesn’t conduct its foreign policy with a watchful, cautious eye toward international or American opinion even though the United States is its chief benefactor, arms supplier, and possibly its lone, reliable ally. However, change is in the air and its new, feisty prime minister, Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu seems well aware that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are no George Bush and Condi Rice.
The Bush administration often demonstrated a total, unflinching commitment to the State of Israel. Despite the support of the vast majority of American Jewish voters for Obama and despite the very powerful Jewish Lobby in this country, the Obama administration has been less than committed, and Bibi is well aware of that as well.
What to do?
Political considerations are never simple matters. Even Julius Caesar, backed by the indomitable Roman army, had to placate, cajole, and intimidate when necessary the various factions in Rome as well as in the provinces. Israel is no Rome and Netanyahu is no Caesar and his options are very few and very limited.
How would the United States react to such a strike? Israel has acted unilaterally before when it staged successful raids on Libya and at Entebbe . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/)
Are you done with your conspiracy theories mr Guarigilla? If i only had a nickel for every time i read some “foreign policy analyst” try and give us justification for threatening other regimes with crooked intelligence. That’s why we are in this mess to begin with.
Iran’s regime is brutal one no doubt, but they are not Nazi and Ahmadinejad is no Hitler.
When one has nukes, one need not be a Hitler.
There’s a very good reason to stop Iran getting the bomb: they will explore the possibility of giving one to one of their proxies, or to some other terrorist group, without being found out. They may decide it’s too risky, of course. But anyone who thinks they won’t look at whether they can do it and get away with it is fond, blind or just malevolent.
The rulers of Iran are not really unhinged – in that I agree with Cohen. But they are grotesquely unprincipled.
There is not one instance in history in which appeasement has made a dictator rethink his approach. There are on the other hand, many examples of dictators taking advantage of the other side’s appeasement tactic to become even more dangerous.
If Roger Cohen is right about Iran’s capabilities and aims, however unlikely, things will be fine. But if he is wrong, as is far more likely, it is doubtful that he will reap the full penalty of his error, that will be for the Israeli’s and the Arab Persian Gulf nation’s to suffer.
Logic in darkest Pajamastán! What next?
But alas! the militant extremist neocomrade blows his gaff instantly with “Cohen’s first error: equating Western-centric models of rationality to those of our theocratic enemies..”
Anybody who thinks ‘rationality’ comes in regional models is clearly some kind of squishy-soft relativist whom decent absolute wingnuttetes and wingnuts ought to shun.
Happy days.
___
ADDENDUMB
There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing following another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. For instance, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters. There is no getting out of it. Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about that fact as he pleases: it really must be. If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack. Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne: and we in fairyland submit. If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved: that is true rationalism, and fairyland is full of it. BUT . . . .
GKC, _Orthodoxy_, _Cap._ IV.
@#1; Berlet98
It’s interesting that you mention the raid on Entebbe, few people realize that ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu’s brother, Yoni Netanyahu, was one of Isreal’s greatest military heroes, and the single military causality on that successful venture to free over 100 Jewish hostages. Sadly, two of the Jewish hostages also dies in the crossfire.
Being a warhawk is a family tradition with the Netanyahu clan. If the Mullahs in Tehran had any sense at all they’d be spending a lot of time looking over their shoulder to see what’s coming at them from Israel. The Netanyahu boys have been known to take it to the terrorists.
No Hitler? So what? Mockmad is himself. He could actually make Adolf look like a amateur before he’s through. Cheery thought, eh?
To those who do not fear Iran I ask, what peaceful method will Iran employ to satisfy their hatred of Israel? A “simple” war?
Those that oppose military action to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons are the same ones who are crying rivers over water boarding of the the man who planned 9/11. They are weak and cowardly. If their side wins the argument, we will all pay the severe price. Never in the history of mankind has a madman had the power to wipe out a country with one bomb.
Angry White Dude
If anyone is interested, I recommend reading; “Self-Portrait of a Hero”, it is the story of Yoni Netanyahu in a collection of his letters home. There is also a thoughtful introduction by Herman Wouk,,, all well worth the read if you are interested in gaining insight into the Netanyahu mindset.
I’m guessing ‘Bibi’ often asks himself; “what would Yoni do?”. Even though Yoni has been dead 33 years, I’m sure his cry from the grave is to unflinchingly do what is best for the survival of his beloved Israel. I doubt his baby brother will do anything less.
In electing Benjamin Netanyahu as PM, Israel has found a leader with some backbone, I wish I could say the same for the USA.
I agree that Iran having a nuclear bomb is bad news for the world. However, the simple truth is that any nation having a nuclear bomb is bad news for the world. Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous, idiotic thing ever created by the human race. Honestly, what species creates a device that can cause it’s own extinction?
I agree the stakes are high, but I wonder if the threat of the takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban doesn’t make these points moot.
Is there on this blog any expert on Persian history who would care to address the following question:
Spain and Portugal, after having been enslaved and plundered for some 7 centuries, managed to free themselves from muslim domination during the catholic “reconquista”. On the other hand, the persian empire, of a much greater geographic extent than that of the Iberian peninsula, became islamic, but never did manage to extricate itself from the humiliations of its islamic conquest. The same applies to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who also became ardent agents of islamic propagation rather than focusing their energies in shaking it off. All these societies were crushed within the grips of islam, and none of them has recovered, yet.
So when we say that the Iranians are a “proud” people, wouldn’t it be more accurate to talk about a people burdened by the collective memory of humiliation? I am not one to excuse the behavior of the mullahs under the banner of “understanding”. My question is whether the Iranians dissidents (not the so-called “moderates”, who are merely posturing politicians) constitute an immense reservoir of courage with which we could coalesce for regime change in Teheran, as opposed to fall in the trappings of “undertanding, respecting and dialoguing with the leaders of the islamic republic”?
“Islamic republic”! How long are we going to continue swallowing this canard?
Seeking a strategic alliance with the Iranian dissidents would not exclude military intervention. Instead, the combination between internal revolt and external military intervention may well be what is necessary to provoke the regime change in Teheran so many of us would like to see. We could live with a democratic Iran with nukes. The real threat is a theocracy with nukes.
We should not separate fighting the nukes from fighting the theocrats. Their association is the present and imminent danger. It seems to me that knocking down either one would diminish the virulence of the other.
If I lived in Israel, I don’t know that I could sleep at night seeing US president who seems determined to reject both avenues of action.
“That’s why we are in this mess to begin with. ”
Jordan, I have never seen such a complete demonstration of ignorance as your statement. May I direct your attention to the attack on the WTC? How about the invasion and capture of the American Embassy in ’79. Or any of the 4700 + other attacks on Americans or American interests between 1980 and 2000.
We are in this mess because Jimmy Carter didn’t have the moral courage to walk up the hill to Congress and ask for a declaration of war against Iran in 1979. That showed the Muslims that the USA was weak and in Islamic culture the weak are attacked. The attack of September 11, 2001 are the direct result of Clinton’s cowardly retreat in Somalia (Blackhawk down).
So the intelligence available had NOTHING TO DO WITH anything. Complete, perfect intelligence is useless if the politicians won’t use it.
If you are obliquely referring to Iraq, then again you are wrong. Saddam HAD WMD right up until a month berfore the invasion. It is a matter of record, that has been proven in court ( not American) that over 1200 tons of Sarin was flown from Iraq to Syria. About 90 tons of that was used in a plot against the King of Jordan. The plot was foiled and the Sarin was captured, then destroyed.
Here is a URL to a liberal site that has links to the transfer of Iraqi WMD’s to Syria;
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/02/06/the-syriairaq-wmd-connection/
The MSM never covered this story because at the time it wasn’t what they wanted to print. It would make them look foolish, which they are. It won’t ever be reported by the MSM because nowdays it isn’t ‘news worthy’. It would also make them look foolish.
They entire media during the 03 to 07 period was focused on forcing President Bush out of office. After that failed, they media wanted him impeached. That didn’t work either, so they settled on greasing the skids for the Usurper. All of which meant portraying President Bush as a ‘chimp’ and moron. This made the BDS types happy. It also destroyed what little creditability the MSM had left and forced them to the edge of bankruptcy.
The Mil-speak term is ‘self inflected wound’.
As far as the Economic mess;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=channel_page
Time to drop the pipe, Jordan and switch from koolaid to coffee.
You gotta hope Arachnid-jihad goes down in June elections, fixed & orchestrated as they may be.
You gotta hope that his “…principal adversary in the June election, Mir-Hussein Mussavi, lashed out at him, saying his extremism had led the country into “isolation and a pariah status.” gains sufficient traction to whatever fix might be in and/or that even “the mullahs” have had enough of the crazed, spidery one.
Hope (not Obama’s brand), it’s wot’s for dinner.
Amir Taheri is always informative, he is Iranian by birth.
INSUFFERABLE IRANIAN
(at the UN fiasco in Geneva, the crazed one even blew the Arabic word for Mohammed, khatim (the seal) and A’jad said khatam, which means ivory inlay, ISN’T THIS AN INSULT TO THE PROPHET or something ?
@14. Prof, I am no expert on Iranian/Persian history but I am pretty sure that the biggest difference was that the Spaniards were Catholics and were supported (off and on) by their co-religionists in Italy and France. The Persian, more correctly, Sassanid Empire, were a fairly thin ruling class over a mish-mash of ethinic groups that followed Zoroastrianism, (the worship of fire), a religion that had few outside followers (but still has some pratictioners inside Iran today).
When Islam spread (at the tip of a spear, of course) it was far more tolerant than today and did little to oppress them so they had little cause to revolt. In effect they had just changed who they paid taxes to whereas the Catholics felt that they were condemned to Hell if they submitted to Islam.
All that aside, I would no more trust the Imams with an A-bomb than I would trust a crack-head with my wallet.
On a positive note, when the Mad Dog Mullahs use a bomb, it will be in a blue state against the same people that allowed them to build it. Poetic justice on a grand scale.
18. Huh, I thought Republicans were “country first”?
So, all you folks itching to start yet another war, if you are of military age, why the hell haven’t you signed up? Why haven’t your kids signed up.
Did I really write what I wrote in post #4 . . !?
Just had the opportunity to read the precise detail of what Ahmadinijad said in Geneva.
He is not only utterly amoral and cynical, but totally unhinged (and I don’t agree with Cohen about anything).
@typos_R_us: Who are you kidding? You seem to have a short memory. We overthrew their democratically elected government back in 53. We trained their ruthless intelligence agency during Shah and supported him. You damn well better expect some pissed off people. Imagine something like that happening to us. Just imagine it for a second. jesus dude.
The attack on the WTC is the direct result of our policies in the middle-east. Go read Bin Laden’s speech and get a clue please.
Jordan,
What policies would those be? What happened in 1953?
Really, if Bin Laden is driven by a just outrage against despotic regimes – and the ones America is allied to are the least vile in the region – would you care to explain why he doesn’t rage against/attack Sudan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban etc etc, and for good measure, the West Bank?
He doesn’t care two hoots about oppression or injustice. In fact, the more oppressive and brutal the better, as long as it’s a paleolithic theocracy in charge.
From what idiotic college course did you imbibe this claptrap?
Erasmus, “So, all you folks itching to start yet another war…”
That’s what you don’t understand. Being confrontational does not necessarily lead to war. In fact, it is the easiest way to prevent war. Do you ever ask yourself why Saddam Hussein thought he would be able to overcome the U.S.’s military? The answer is that he was betting that he wouldn’t have to. He was betting that the UN’s hollow sanctions would last forever, and that the world was satisfied with trying to placate him. Don’t you realize that if men like Saddam Hussein actually believed that open hostility to the United States would lead to them being hunted like dogs and then handed over to the people they’d persecuted that the U.S. would never have to go to war?
When you have the most dominant military in the world, why is it a good tactic of negotiation to convince those who are hostile that you will not use your military? Wouldn’t the opposite tactic be the one that would prevent war? You are simply waiting until a time when Iran will no longer have to fear the U.S. military. Then they certainly will not have to listen to you.
Jordan, yes great idea! Lets define our foreign policy based on the advise from Bin Laden’s speeches. How about WTF are you thinking? Get a clue indeed!
@lefroy: What policies would those be? What happened in 1953?
Read a book or two. Google Operation Ajax.
In a couple of posts around here before, I had advocated for Israel to attack and destroy the nuclear capabilities of Iran. After a harsh retaliation, then Israel must use nuclear bombs and nuke them.
I know some people will read this and agree, but no one says it. We are so good, you know. Here is the real danger.
But I stand by my statement because I am totally convinced that the time has already passed for negotiations, and by the way the Iranian government only wants to destroy Israel and the Jews, and is not interested in peace at all. They use, in a war of attrition, now Hamas, then Hezbollah. This until they build atomic weapons. The only thing left to Israel is a show of great force. It is a matter of survival. This will finally bring peace and save lives.
The Jihadis only understand the Law of the Jungle, survival of the fittest.
There is something named Karma, in the Bible is defined by the expression “Whatever you sow, you reap”. Amadinejad and the hateful Ayatollahs seem not to understand this cosmic law. They don’t understand that if you constantly spew hate and use violent language against others, calling for destruction and genocide, one day, just one day, Wotan the Berserker may knock at your door. (As it did to Hitler and Nazi Germany).
OBAMA’S “ENGAGEMENT” MYTHOLOGY
Apparently being friends with Hugo Chavez is not making America more popular in Pakistan or Iran.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/04/diplomacy-myths-left-likes-to-tell.html
The mullahs of Iran cheered the overthrow of Mossadegh. Furthermore, that operation prevented the USSR from getting a foothold in Iran in 1953. Think about Russian aircraft based at Hormuz and what theat would have meant for the correlation of forces, as the Russians used to call it. Think of Soviet subversion and support for guerillas across land borders in the Middle East. There would have been a can of worms indeed.
And why do I say that? Because every other Middle Eastern leader who overthrew the old order and took control of his country turned to become a client of the USSR. Nasser, Qassem, Ghadhdhaffi, the various Syrian thugs, they all did. Mossadegh would have had to turn to Russia out of the logic of his position. He would have been terrified of the US and Britain trying to take his swag, the nationalized oil assets, from him. He would have concluded that only the presence of the USSR as protector could have prevented that, so he would have made Iran a client state of the USSR. Iran would have ended up looking much like Egypt, except for one thing. Iran has a land border with what was then the USSR. No other Middle Eastern state that became a Soviet client state did. Iran would have been uniquely vulnerable to subversion and perhaps to being treated the way Afghanistan later was, at a time when Russia was relatively stronger economically and ideologically than it was in the 80s, but without the neighboring American client state like Pakistan to provide an active sanctuary for resistants. And with the Soviets in Iran more expansion in the Middle East would have been possible.
The Iranians owe Eisenhower and Kermit Roosevelt thanks for sparing them Sovietization.
The bottom line is that Israel is a nuclear power, with the missile and nuclear weapons technology to deliver a number of nuclear warheads to any targets in Iran. 100 for Iran, and the rest for Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza. Three nuclear explosions would dcimate Israel, and everyone knows it. Israel letting Iran get nuclear weapons would invite Holocaust II, and everyone knows it. I favor our allaince with Israel. I would hate to spend two weeks in my basement, but I prefer that to the disgrace of another Holocaust.
If the weak sister Obama administration cannot stop Iran, Israel can.
I advise Israel to do what it takes.
Another factor to consider–the Russians..Read what Ariel Cohen has to say about the Russian handicap to US policy on Iran: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2943&TTL=The_Russian_Handicap_to_U.S._Iran_Policy
There’s no need to worry. Obama’s lack of expertise is an asset for him. He’s making friends with the terrorists and alienating allies.
Besides,
Iran’s missiles can’t even reach as far as Denver!… So only the East Cost of the US is threatened.
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel