Ultimately, I agree with what Tom Friedman is saying about what Israel should be saying and doing about the Iran Deal, so I want to be clear about that. But there’s just something so Suck.On.This about his “out-crazy” theory that I have to mention it.
I’d also note the reason Hezbollah hasn’t launched an unprovoked attack on Israel since 2006 is it knows, by experience, that Israel’s core strategic doctrine is this: No enemy will ever out-crazy us into leaving this region.
Israel plays, when it has to, by what I’ve called “Hama rules” — war without mercy. The Israeli Army tries to avoid hitting civilian targets, but it has demonstrated in both Lebanon and Gaza that it will not be deterred by the threat of civilian Arab casualties when Hezbollah or Hamas launches its rockets from civilian areas. It is not pretty, but this is not Scandinavia. The Jewish state has survived in an Arab-Muslim sea because its neighbors know that for all its Western mores it will not be out-crazied. It will play by local rules. Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah know this, which is why Israel’s generals know they possess significant deterrence against an Iranian bomb.
It’s a nice little construct, a way of trying to understand the region. But it’s all such horseshit.
Israel has three concerns about Iran having a nuclear weapon but none of them involve Iran actually launching one at them and so none of them are really about deterrence in the sense Friedman intends.
First, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will, like the Soviet Union/Russia, North Korea and Pakistan, become freer to act however it wants in its sphere of influence.
So, second, the Arab nations will be tempted to create a nuclear weapons capability of their own to protect themselves and to give them more freedom of action.
And, third, there’s always the small possibility that proxies could be used to attack Israel with a smaller nuclear device or dirty bombs that have as their origin the Iranian nuclear program or some future Arab program.
But, even these concerns are not foremost in Netanyahu’s mind. His main concern is to prevent Iran from getting the legitimacy that will be conferred by having the sanctions lifted and normal trade and travel policies restored.
We organized the sanctions on Iran to get them to the nuclear bargaining table. Israel wants the sanctions to cause regime change, and short of that they want permanent international isolation and the maintenance of Iran as a pariah state.
This is a much higher priority for Netanyahu than the bomb precisely because the bomb is not the primary thing he’s worried about. Iran will not fire a bomb at Israel and it is extremely unlikely that they will hand one to Hizbollah or any other nuts. And even an Arab nuclear program seems like a pretty remote threat at the moment due to all the turmoil in the region.
But the Iranian regime will remain hostile and has the ability to cause problems for Israel by non-nuclear means. Getting right with the international community will only increase their conventional threat.
So, Friedman isn’t even talking about the real issues and the real concerns.
Instead, he’s still operating on the same assumption that led him to support the Iraq invasion, which is that the Arabs need to be treated with a little irrational brutality or they won’t behave.
And, whether you accept that argument or you don’t, it’s not pertinent to Israel’s opposition to this deal.
Same basic approach he used to support invading Iraq. Can’t believe Friedman still has the nerve to show his face in print. He’s like Bill Kristol.
At least he’s for the deal though.
Getting right with the international community! Hey, there’s something that Netanyahu could try. If no one gives a shit what he thinks, he has only himself to blame.
Did I miss the entrance to the rabbit-hole or the surface of the looking-glass?
The point of inspection is to prevent nations from getting nuclear weapons. So far nations who are under inspection have only developed nuclear weapons when someone else has ended the inspection regime (the most notorious case is Bush allowing North Korean breakout). Not having the deal and having sanctions allows a much easier path to nuclear weapons plus the incentive to try. It also requires those wanting to keep Iran non-nuclear to work harder and spend more money on strategies of pressure.
Second, a regime of inspection means that Israel comes under greater focus for its nuclear program. Israel has signed but neither ratified nor implemented the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This agreement leave Israel as the sole nuclear power in the region (outside of any US-stationed nukes in Turkey, the Mediterranean, or the Persian Gulf.)
Third, it has been Israel’s policy over the past nine years to provoke attacks prior to invasions. And to do that by keeping unrelenting pressure on asymmetrical warfare from Gaza and Lebanon and on any non-violent or violent resistance to settlement expansion.
While a nice theoretical idea and a good novel scenario, smaller nukes and dirty bombs really don’t make sense because of the disproportionate response that they will get from any nation. Any serious nuclear nation would already understand that for a nuclear nation to use an asymmetric tactic would bring a potentially devastating response. The whole idea of nuclear power is the balance between credibility and not having to use nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu is scared of the spotlight finally being turned on Israel’s behavior. Especially as he rushes to build out the rest of Eretz Israel with settlements and depopulate Gaza.
Friedman? I guess he’s at the Times for at least another Friedman Unit. The Times really has become irrelevant to sorting out policy. Oh yes, that was the March Hare I walked by on first reading.
Beyond the fact that his argument off point with regard to Israel’s true strategic concern, Friedman’s core point is racist and he lacks the self awareness to see it. “Yes, these uncivilized little brown people. Of course Israel cannot live by our civilized white norms. Tsk, tsk. They should have the decency to just go away. Surely there must be someplace for them to slink off to and become invisible.”
Friedman is better informed about the Middle East than he was 12 years ago; his suckup character makes him as responsive to Obama now as he was to Cheney-Bush in those days, and he’s not that stupid. It’s my belief that when he writes pieces like this one he is literally writing to Netanyahu, or to Netanyahu supporters in the US, trying to persuade them; and working from premises that he believes Netanyahu would accept, for the sake of argument. Netanyahu wants us to think the bomb is the primary thing, because he knows Americans will be frightened about that, while we would not get equally excited over his real interests; Friedman, in the hope of influencing him, plays along and pretends to take it seriously. Making his arguments baffling to the rest of us.