I can’t say with any certainty that the U.S. has had no involvement in or foreknowledge of the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. As I see it, the source of these attacks is probably Israel. It’s much less likely to be the U.S. acting alone. And there is a small possibility that these attacks are self-inflicted by the regime to help them maintain the support of the people. Since I can’t know for certain who is responsible, it’s not easy to condemn anyone specifically. Instead, I have to talk in hypotheticals.
Obviously, if Iran is killing its own scientists and blaming the U.S. and Israel for it, that’s just plain evil.
If the U.S. is targeting their scientists then we should expect blowback. If we go kill civilians in their country, who is to stop them from coming here and killing civilians in our country. If we have nothing to do with these attacks, then we ought to have a discussion with the responsible party about how they’re putting us in danger.
If the assassinations are Israel acting alone without any assistance from the U.S., they should know that we don’t approve. If Israel wants to fight Iran directly instead of going through their proxies, that’s their business, but we shouldn’t be dragged into it.
I don’t think murdering scientists is a reasonable or moral or necessary way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.
All the more reason that the terrorist state of Israel should be facing sanctions, not $3 billion in aid. Hey, aren’t we sponsoring terrorism? Not that this is out of the ordinary for the United States, but it’s still amusing to me.
You said the Syrian and Iranian regimes are two peas in a pod — a better match made in heaven is the fascist Likud party and the Republicans. Not that the Democrats are any less subservient to Israel, and not that I see us as being subservient (because US foreign policy would be shit even if Israel didn’t exist), but Democratic and Likud administrations almost always hate each other.
Also, according to ex-Mossad agents, this has every fingerprint linking it to Israel. I do not think I’m jumping the gun in saying so.
I don’t think the post-Porter Goss CIA is capable of pulling this off. But damn, do they have some bitchin’ toys!
“This tactic is not a new one for the Mossad, and worked very effectively against Egypt’s rocket program in the 1960s. During that period, the scientists involved in that project were assassinated and the program suffered immensely.”
Another example: Mossad assassinated the gun designer who was helping Saddam build his “supergun.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
Unless there’s evidence that the US did it, all “just asking the question” bullshit about the US doing is every bit as shitty as Michael Moore/Glenn Greenwald’s made-up lies about Obama/DHS being behind the OWS crackdowns.
That’s mighty gracious of you, Captain Obvious. Has our foreign policy slid so badly – including publicly authorizing an assassination of a US citizen – that something like this even has to be stated?
That said, Israel is the more likely culprit. But it scarcely matters. In Iran and in much of the Muslim world, the US and Israel are seen as indistinguishable in such matters; the actions of one are assumed to have the approval of the other as well. And no matter what might be said behind closed doors, there is no, repeat no, history of the US either openly criticizing Israel or holding it accountable in any meaningful way – i.e., one that involves money or weapon sales – for its depredations.
Israel knows it can do literally anything, and the US will defend it before the UN and the world. This is the sort of behavior that results. And increasingly, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, the US has been engaging in the same sort of terrorism.
Well, I don’t think it is obvious to a lot of people. If we were talking about World War II and targeting German nuclear scientists, people wouldn’t bat an eye about assassinating them.
Many, many circumstances are different in this case. But until you spell out those differences, the morality of it would appear to be the same.
If the idea is to prevent Iran from successfully developing a nuclear arsenal without going to war, you might think that these assassinations are buying time or providing needed deterrence or forestalling more robust action, etc.
To actually make the case that these assassinations are immoral and unnecessary, you have to look deeper into the real situation, the stakes, the whole status of nuclear non-proliferation in general, and many more things besides.
I didn’t bother to do all that, and so my piece is just argumentative and not very persuasive.
The Secretary of Defense just said the other day that Iran isn’t pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Not exactly. What Panetta said is more complicated than that, and it was aimed at knocking back the neo-conservative case for preemptive strikes. What Panetta said was that Iran is not at this very moment building a nuclear weapon. We, of course, know that. They are working on enriching uranium to a purity level much higher than they need for a power plant. They may be working on triggers. They’ve just opened a new facility designed to resist our best weapons. It’s like this.
Say you were planning on building a house but you weren’t certain that you would actually build it. Then you hire an architect, a construction foreman, and you begin assembling the lumber, plumbing, and electrical supplies. Are you building a house?
That depends on semantics, doesn’t it?
Panetta said this kind of behavior was “not developing a nuclear weapon.” Well, I guess that depends on how you want to look at it.
There’s a different question that doesn’t get asked enough by progressives, in my opinion. That’s why isn’t Iran developing a nuclear weapon? And another question. Why are they willing to take so much crap and feel so much economic pain related to their nuclear program if they have no intention of having one in the first place?
The UN, the signatories of the NPT, and, especially, the world powers, have to do what they can short of war to prevent the spread of nuclear-armed nations, and to reduced the stockpiles in the nations that do have weapons or who haven’t signed the treaty.
That involves aggressiveness and coercion. It requires a degree of hypocrisy and double standards that are less important than non-proliferation. It’s easy to criticize. But it’s also important.
I’m really sick of hearing arguments about the world has no right to tell Iran that they can’t have nuclear weapons or that they ought to have them since Israel has them. I’d love to see Israel disarm like South Africa before them. If that is ever going to happen, then Iran is going to have to stop playing games with IAEA and talking a bunch of trash.
What we want is to steadily, incrementally, reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the world. If that involves some hypocrisy, I don’t care in the least so long as we succeed.
And increasingly, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, the US has been engaging in the same sort of terrorism.
If you actually think that shooting at al Qaeda terrorists is, itself, terrorism, you need to have your head examined.
If you think the only people we’ve shot at in the last 20 years – let alone the only people we’ve been killing – are “Al Qaeda terrorists,” you need to have your head examined.
And increasingly, under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, the US has been engaging in the same sort of terrorism.
You’re just flat-out wrong with this. The only “increasing” use of targeted killing under these Presidents has been against al Qaeda. There was far more during the Cold War than under Bill Clinton.
It’s useful to keep some historical perspective, instead of reflexively concluding that whatever is happening in your own time is the worst, biggest thing ever.
Netanyahu could very well be going solo knowing that he is pissing off Obama with the guilt through a pandering congress thing. Our standing ovations for Bibi type congress.
However. This stuff is synchronized. Mossad blows up missile sites, assassinates nuclear scientists and hacks centrifuges. Our drones gather intelligence and we push an oil embargo. Our 5th fleet also keeps the strait of Hormuz open.
They are really upping the pressure now. Is Obama pandering to the Jewish vote or is he doing this from a real fear of Iranians getting nukes? Are they trying to influence the Iranian elections or bring people into the streets by starving the regime? Something seems to have kicked into high gear here. Why now?
Netanyahu could very well be going solo knowing that he is pissing off Obama with the guilt through a pandering congress thing.
There’s another possibility. Hamas used to carry out atrocities against Israel when the Palestinian Authority was engaging in negotiations, to try to make it politically impossible for the Israelis to negotiate.
If there were sub-rosa talks between the US and Iran (or more moderate elements in Iran) going on, like there were throughout the Clinton years, and Israel didn’t like that, something like this would make it impossible for the more-accommodating Iranians to strike a deal, or to get the Iranian government as a whole to agree.
I actually thought the idea of Iran doing this was pretty fair speculation, although my husband thought I was in fantasy land. But apparently the guy who was killed was a pretty low-level procurement officer, and I have to wonder why Israel or the U.S. would target someone who really has no relevance..seems like a waste of an assassination if you’re trying to stop progress. Anyway..back to fantasy land.
This assumes that the main point of these killings (some of which have been of senior scientists, others not) has been to deprive the Iranian nuclear program of the expertise of the victims. That’s a nice side benefit, but that’s not the point.
The dictionary definition of terrorism is that it’s a tactic which instills terror; it makes other people fear, in this case for their lives. And that’s the end which Israel (and surely the US, though it may or may not approve of the means) wants: an entire class of Iranian scientists which fears for their lives if they continue to work for the Iranian government. That’s the real disruptive force intended here, and it’s a textbook example of international terrorism.
During the Central American wars in the ’80s there was a common anti-war graphic showing identical silhouettes of two people with M-16s, labelled “Freedom Fighter” and “Terrorist.” The point remains the same: it’s still a terrorist act, even when we (or, more often, our bankrolled allies) do it.
That’s a nice side benefit, but that’s not the point.
You have absolutely no idea what the assassin’s ‘point’ is. You are completely talking through your hat with this “correction.”
You made up an assumption based on zero evidence, and then used your assumption as the basis for your conclusion that this is terrorism.
I know what the obvious motivations would, and would not, be for any of the parties (Iran, Israel, US) that have been speculated upon as behind the killings. And I know that assassinations by a foreign country not at war with Iran (either Israel or the US) of people who belong to a class but are not key members of that class would be acts of terror, and how acts of terror work. I also know that both Israel and the US have long, sordid histories of covert, illegal acts of war of precisely this sort, a history you seem mighty anxious to ignore. With the US, whether you like it or not that bipartisan history includes Democrats and Republicans in the White House. And I also know that there is no evidence the Iranian government has in the past engaged in false flag operations against its own scientists, which is the only other explanation with even a shred of plausibility. As some of us used to comment regarding Saddam and the US, it takes real effort to cede the moral high ground to the thugs running Iran.
You’re being mighty pedantic here. Every time anyone on this blog speculates about, for example, what Obama or some other public figure “wants,” they are in a sense talking out their ass, because we don’t have first hand knowledge. You’re being — excuse me, wouldn’t want to attribute a motive, you appear to be responding purely here as a contrarian asshole. You’re doing a good job of it.
“you appear to be responding purely here as a contrarian asshole. You’re doing a good job of it.
I couldn’t have put it better myself!
And I know that assassinations by a foreign country not at war with Iran (either Israel or the US) of people who belong to a class but are not key members of that class would be acts of terror
No, they wouldn’t. For such attacks to be terror, they would have to be carried out for the purpose of coercing a civilian population or government, through fear of further attacks. Killings done for the purpose of getting rid of the specific target, and denying that target’s services to the government, would not be terrorism. And it is exactly the purpose of these killings – to scare others, or to eliminate specific assets – that is the question. You’re merely assuming your conclusion, and then using it as a proposition to prove itself.
I also know that both Israel and the US have long, sordid histories of covert, illegal acts of war of precisely this sort, a history you seem mighty anxious to ignore.
You’re deluded. I’ve written comments discussing specifically those histories, going into much greater detail than you, including on this thread. You really do limit your understanding of events to thinking about “good guys” and “bad guys,” don’t you?
You’re being mighty pedantic here.
I found that people inflating the definition of “terrorism” beyond its standard meaning, purely for emotional effect in a political argument, tends to be bad for discourse. It’s not just a punctuation mark, you know.
you appear to be responding purely here as a contrarian asshole
Interesting thing about the word “appear” – it’s doesn’t actually tell us anything about the person who “appears,” but about the mindset of the person to whom something “appears” someway. I absolutely believe you that you can’t see any point to my comment besides being mean, but that’s really on you.
Er, “including on this site,” that is.
I just have to highlight this, because it demonstrates the non-reality-based nature of how the fist-in-the-air-sophomore crowd thinks, or fails to think:
Geov: This assumes that the main point of these killings (some of which have been of senior scientists, others not) has been to deprive the Iranian nuclear program of the expertise of the victims. That’s a nice side benefit, but that’s not the point.
Joe: You have no idea what the point of these killings was
Geov: I also know that both Israel and the US have long, sordid histories of covert, illegal acts of war of precisely this sort, a history you seem mighty anxious to ignore. With the US, whether you like it or not that bipartisan history includes Democrats and Republicans in the White House.
So, class, how do we know that denying the Iranian nuclear program the expertise of these scientists is not the point, but only a side-benefit? Why, because the United States and Israel are bad, of course. Because they are bad, they must be terrorists. And because they are terrorists, the point of these killings must have been terrorism.
Sloppy, illogical thought.
.
Response to the Freshman here, a little wet behind the ears. The State founded on terror …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."And you’re writing this to the commenter who has repeatedly, on several different threads, attributed this to the Israelis, why, exactly?
BTW, what’s the logic here? If you can produce enough evidence that Israel is really, really bad, that will make the purpose of these assassinations terrorism instead of the elimination of specific skilled targets?
It’s like you set out to demonstrate my point.
So I guess we’ll be seeing murder prosecutions any day now. Our “intelligence agencies” are surely on the case, seeking justice. In other news, pigs were seen flying over Philadelphia, though there is some speculation that it was just Christie, off course again.
“Off course again”.
You`re telling me.
One just landed in my girlfriend`s lap.
Wow television doesn’t do him justice. Pretty svelte dude in the still. Although I’m not convinced its really him.
“Obviously, if Iran is killing its own scientists and blaming the U.S. and Israel for it, that’s just plain evil.”
And obviously if the US or Israel is killing the Iranians & blaming it on the Iranians, it`s just as evil.
And if the US or Israel is doing the killing but hides behind the “Who Me?” excuse, it`s also just as evil.
Extra judicial assassination is in & of itself evil.
Not if you’re an American Exceptionalist, Knucklehead.
“If Iran is killing its own scientists and blaming the U.S. and Israel for it, that’s just plain evil.”
As if Iran has to kill its own people and valuable resources in particular to find cause to complain about the behaviour of the U.S.
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2011/12/19-december-sanctions.html
Also http://www.womenagainstwar.org/Iran/iran_next_flier.pdf
George |Galloway had an interesting response to one of the Talking Heads flogging ‘preemptive strike’ ( sung to the tune of Tora,Tora,Tora every Dec 7 ? )
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/06/behind-the-deepening-crisis-with-iran-the-real-story-versus-
the-cover-story/
From http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/a-two-edged-sword/
This should be unproductive, as you are operating from a patently false premise used for decades to pose those hosting nuclear disarmament conferences and subjecting their civilian power facilities to outside inspection.( as the ‘real danger’: what a headbanger !)
What part of getting fuel and technical support from Russia escapes your attention ? Didn’t the Cuban Missile Crisis establish their credentials as people who knew how to deal with nuclear threats in their back yard ?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm
The nuclear facility at Bushehr was the focus of a considerable amount of controversy, especially in the United States. The reactor was being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for $800-million. Although originally intended to be the location of a German-built reactor in the 1970s, the new reactor was to be built to Russian design specifications, though the original reactor buildings exterior appearance would remain essentially the same. There were two reactors at Bushehr, one was in an advanced stage of completion the other had not been worked on for some time and was not scheduled to be completed as of 2006.
Iran was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though it had not ratified two ADDITIONAL protocols
( Signed the treaty – and was not interested in being flim flammed out of the meagre consideration it had afforded )
The Leon Penetta link debunking the tale has already appeared on this thread.
Here are the Talking Points
http://www.transcend.org/tms/2010/05/the-npt-and-the-nuclear-power-trap/
Juan Cole’s speculation is that it is a MEK terrorists acting on behalf of someone. His guess is Mossad. See his diary yesterday on Informed Comment.
Very interesting
good topic, good discussion.
“Obviously, if Iran is killing its own scientists and blaming the U.S. and Israel for it, that’s just plain evil.“
And obviously if the US is murdering Iranian civilians its not reasonable, moral, or necessary, but all we should really be concerned about is blowback.
And obviously if Israel is the one murdering Iranian civilians the US should just tsk tsk at them about it, and ask them to keep the US out of it.
American exceptionalism lives on.
During the seige on Sarajevo, every time a child was killed by a sniper or a mortar round, the Serbs would claim that it was really the Bosnians who fired the round at their own people, trying to gain sympathy.
But everyone knew they were lying.
Likewise, the Iranians aren’t killing their own nuclear scientists. There’s no point in even pretending on that count.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."