-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 11:06 PM
Share
What's the biggest problem facing the world today? Most people would probably say the downward spiral of the global economy. Over at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Steve Schwartzman, chairman of the Blackstone private equity group, said "Forty percent of the world's wealth was destroyed in last five quarters. It is an almost incomprehensible number." NewsCorp chief Rupert Murdoch warned "the crisis is getting worse” and said that fixing it "will take a long time."
Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- whose Likud Party is leading the current polls in Israel -- begs to differ. According to the Associated Press, Netanyahu told the Davos crowd that Iran's nuclear program "ranks far above the global economy as a challenge facing world leaders."
Why? According to Netanyahu, it's because the financial meltdown is reversible if governments and business make the right decisions. But "what is not reversible is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fanatical radical regime," he said, adding that "we have never had, since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons in hands of such a fanatical regime."
There are plenty of good reasons to try to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and it is easy to understand why Israelis are especially concerned about Iran's nuclear program. But Netanyahu's assessment of the relative importance of these two problems is just plain wrong, for at least five reasons.
First, let's be clear about the current state of play. Iran has no nuclear weapons today, and we still don't know for sure if they will ever get them. By contrast, the economic crisis is a reality now. Iran cannot build a bomb today because it has no plutonium or highly-enriched uranium (HEU). Its centrifuges are producing low-enriched uranium (LEU), but you can’t build a bomb with that. In theory it could enrich its LEU to weapons grade, but its LEU stockpile is under IAEA surveillance and the diversion would be detected (this turns out to be something the IAEA is very good at doing). As William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Jim Walsh note in a sensible article in the latest New York Review of Books, if Iran wants a bomb, its choices "are to cheat and get caught or to kick the inspectors out." Unless Iran has a secret clandestine enrichment program up and running somewhere (which we’ve found no sign of up till now), it’s hard to see the current situation as anywhere near as serious as our economic problems today.
Second, Netayanhu is wrong to say that the world have never seen such a "fanatical regime" with nuclear weapons. Iran's government has many unsavoury qualities, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said some stupid and offensive things about the Holocaust and about Israel. But "fanatical?" By historic standards Iran's government isn't even in the top rank, and its foreign policy behavior is hardly irrational. Joseph Stalin was an even greater mass murderer than Adolf Hitler, and his successors were ruthless, ideologically-driven men with scant regard for human life. They had a large nuclear arsenal, and yet we managed to wage and win the Cold War against them anyway. Similarly, Mao Zedong was directly responsible for millions of deaths, and he also made a number of shockingly cavalier remarks about nuclear war. Indeed, Secretary of State Dean Rusk once told a Congressional committee that "a country whose behavior is as violent, irascible, unyielding and hostile as that of Communist China is led by leaders whose view of the world and of life itself is unreal." Yet Mao had the bomb and never used it; indeed, Chinese nuclear weapons policy has been quite circumspect for over forty years.
Third, it is remarkably self-centered for Netanyahu to declare Iran's program to be a greater challenge than the global recession. The economic crisis is already harming many millions of people around the world, and it is likely to have an enduring impact on how millions of people -- even billions -- live their lives. It will lower life expectancy, alter life-opportunities, change demographic patterns, and affect the tenor of politics in many places, probably for the worse. Just look at all the social and political ills spawned by the Great Depression and you get some idea what a protracted global recession might do today. Even if Iran did get nuclear weapons someday, that is mostly a regional problem rather than a global one. Iran's neighbors would have legitimate concerns, but does Netanyahu really think that this is a bigger issue than the world economy for the leaders of Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Norway, Japan, China, Chile, South Africa, or New Zealand?
Fourth, let's not forget that Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons of its own, and Israel's American ally has several thousand of them. If Iran were to acquire a few nuclear weapons someday, it could not use them without triggering its own destruction. Iran's government may support terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad that employ suicide bombers, but Iran's leaders show no signs of being suicidal themselves.
Finally, the more panicked people sound about the prospect of an Iranian arsenal, the more that Iranians might falsely conclude that getting a few bombs might actually give them a lot of leverage. This sort of overheated rhetoric may also convince some Israelis that an Iranian bomb would be an existential threat and convince them to leave, which in turn might give some Iranians an additional reason to pursue that option. Ironically, by portraying a legitimate security concern as an imminent peril, Netanyahu and others of his ilk may in fact be undermining Israel's long-term future.
Netanyahu's remarks may help him win more votes back in Israel, but my guess is that didn't win him much sympathy in Davos. To a sophisticated crowd with a global perspective, I'll bet it sounded like special pleading, which is precisely what it was.
ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images
Not surprising. I've had it in for Bibi ever since hearing him explain at a Zionists on Cleveland Campuses event that there was no such thing as Palestinian culture. His justification? "Whoever heard of a Palestinian Symphony Orchestra?" I realize he may have just been cynically playing to his audience's prejudices and might not be such an imbecile himself, but I'm not sure that's any better. It's hard to tell whether his audience was really the people at Davos or newspaper readers back home in Israel.
Hold up - "Palestinian culture" is a non starter. It's actually Arab culture - like Jordan, Egypt and Syria than any identifiable (unless you consider the Palestinian literacy rate - the highest in the Arab League) difference in the classic def of 'culture'.
I think Netanyahu's tirade against the Iranian Nuclear program was designed for the audience back home. It is election season so its not surprising.
There is no way the audience in Davos was buying that.
This post in nonsense. I have no strong opinion on which is a greater threat, but this post fails basic logic.
First, the dichotomy you posit between a current problem and a future problem is false. This can probably be seen most easily if you take Israel/Iran out of the equation and substitute something else: Let's say you believe the most dire warnings about global warming. So, like Al Gore, you believe we've only got a few years left before the global warming is unstoppable and the world begins an inevitable change forever, with the oceans rising and all the parade of horribles the global warming enthusiasts always posit.
Which is a more serious problem? The current financial crisis or the Gore-version future end of the world due to global warming? Obviously, you can see from this example that even though the problem is a future one, it's much more dire than the current one.
Most of the rest of your post is based on questionable facts (I frankly have no idea how close Iran is to a nuclear bomb, because there's so much propaganda and conflicting information on it; but what I do know for sure is that you don't know, either).
Lastly, your notion that an Iranian bomb would be simply a regional problem is absurd and contradicted by your own writing. If Israel/Palestine is a global problem, then certainly a nuclear standoff between Israel and Iran is one. If Iran leverages its bomb to achieve hegemony over the mideast, that's certainly a global problem. We saw what $150/b oil did to our economy, how about $200+/b oil...forever? If the Iranian bomb sets off a nuclear arms race in the mideast, that's a global problem. The very notion that you could have the threat of nuclear war anywhere and that would only be a regional problem is absurd. Are there any other nuclear standoffs that are simply regional problems?
It may be that you're correct in that Iran, like other nuclear regimes, is deterrable through MAD, but at this point we really have no idea whether this is true (Iran would be the first real theocracy to have a bomb, so it's hard to come up with a proper historical analogy). It may also be that we're entering a period that will be like the Great Depression and that will have similar political upheavals worldwide (but even this contradicts your false dichotomy between future/current problems). So, your conclusion may be correct; but to an educated crowd with a sense of basic logic, your argument sounds like you need to spend some time back in school.
Iran would not be the first theocracy to have a bomb,
Iran would not be the first theocracy to have a bomb since Israel (AKA the Jewish state) already has many, many bombs. The main reason why Netanyahu objects to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is because it would cause Israel to lose some of its supremacy in the Middle East. The Iranians are not crazy, they know Israel is well supplied militarily and they would not engage in a first strike. Israel knows this but is in the habit of advocating the destruction of any power in the Middle East that may in the future challenge its rule.
Iran, the 1st Nuke powered 'theocrazy?'
So? Little Satan also has a penchant for periodic, transparent elections, an uncensored, free press, an independent judiciary under elected gov oversight, a military under civie control and a tolerant egalitarian society.
Persia does not.
Periodic, transparent elections in which the non-Jewish minority is excluded from forming any coalitions in the Knesset and in which Arab parties can get excluded;
A judiciary whose edicts are routinely not enforced (example, construction of "The Wall" through Palestinian areas);
A civilian population that can be called to serve in the military at any time, thereby blurring the lines between military and civilian;
And a society which is anything but egalitarian and tolerant when it comes to the human rights of its Palestinian citizens, and who would rather see them transferred to another state.
I do agree with you about the press...I love to read the dissident voices in Haaretz, especially Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. It gives me hope that one day Israel can put aside this racist episode in its history and be able to live in peace and with justice with the original inhabitants of the land.
Racist episode? YAWN. Compared to, oh - say Iran?
Might help to play "Which one of these is not like the other" betwixt Little Satan and Persia.
Comparing them is like comparing a Ford Explorer with a Land Rover. They are two entirely different critters.
If you think that the Jews will ever get along with each other you are a dreamer.
If you think that the Jews will ever get along with each other you are a dreamer.
If you think that the Jews will ever get along with each other you are a dreamer.
Jewish State is not a theocracy!!!!!
Look it up.
Here is Oxfords definition:
theocracy n. (pl. -ies) form of government by God or a god directly, or through a priestly order etc.
Iran fits this definition as power is concentrated in the mullahs and the "Supreme Leader" is the Ayatollah, Khameini at the moment. All political institutions in Iran, the president, the parliment are subordinate to the Clergy and and serve at their discretion.
Israel is a Jewish State like Japan is a Japanese State or France is a French State (irrespective of large minorities).
Following your nonsense logic the mere fact that a majority of a population adhere to a religion makes it a de facto theocracy would mean Italy, Brazil, the rest of Latin America, or the Philipines are Catholic Theocracies.
Judging from the number of exclamation marks, I must have hit a nerve here.
If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, announced on May 14, 1948 by the Jewish community in Israel: "the establishment of a JEWISH STATE in the land of Israel." You can also look it up in Wikipedia; Israel is listed as a theocracy, along with the boogey-man, Iran.
And last time I checked, "Japanese" and "French" were not recognized religions.
Israel is not a theocracy, it is just not a lay state. There is a big difference.
The meaningful question.....that is the question
the real question should be
Is Israel a mono law State like the US and France and Iran?
and the answer is
Yes Sir!
In spite of there are distinguishable SPEEs within the legal limits of Israel.
What I am trying to say is this:
Suppose there exists an American Lobby (or a Safardim or an Ashkenazi Lobby) in Israel who feel at home with the US Laws (Safardim/Ashkenazi laws), would Israel recognize the right to make their own laws to the American Lobby?
That is the _question_!
Grand Sen~or
i suppose stupididity always strikes a nerve.....
Jew is not a religious designation tho thru common usage it can mean such. As an example you will never see the word Jew in the Bible used as a designation of religion. It is used to denote tribal and later national affiliation.
Israel as 'Jewish State' is reference to the nation not in anyway a reference to religion (it is a different word in any event within the Hebrew language. This is relevant since the declaration was in Hebrew.)
The simple explanation is Jews are the descendants of the people of Judea, hence the word Jew, who were forcibly exiled by the Romans.
I looked at Wikipedia, it did not list Israel as a theocracy. Wikepedia said Israel like a number of other countries like Norway or the UK have "vestigial theocratic aspects".
However judging by what you write I can see how you would be confused by the Wikepedia article failing to comprehend the scale of the differences between Israel, UK, Norway with Iran or Saudi Arabia.
It is not about if they are a theocracy or not, in their history they have not really acted in an irrational way, you would be hard pressed to show some illogical behavior from Iran.
Secondly Iran can be deterred as former Cent com chief Gen. John Abizaid noted.
So the problem is not whether Iran will confront Israel
(it won't Israel still has more nukes and a better military) but by getting a nuke Iran will no longer be in a weak strategic position vis a vis Israel. Israel fears its wide advantage will diminish.
Furthermore a nuclear Iran does not threaten U.S but it could threaten its neighbors and try to achieve hegemony in the Mid east. Or alternatively a nuclear Iran can create an arms race that results in a nuclear region, which can make it harder for us to project power in it.
But still the above scenario does not hurt our overall strategic position too much, however it does hurt Israel's strategic position but that not our concern.
Way too engrossing a topic to be discussed on the run.
But walt you are the best mind reader, you enumerated every thing in my mind --of course, much more elegantly!
especially the second, about Ahmadinejad not making the cut to the world class of crazies. (don't want to be prof*ne on the worth of H-holocaust, but even if ten chinese lives worth only one of jewish, mao beats hitler hands down--sorry my special beef with the liberals and woodle of chinese STILL enamoured with mao. in fact, of these larger than life fanatics, mao is the most relevant, i believe. because he is the most beguiling of this beguiling crowd. he used to scare the sh*t out of the shoepounding Khrushchev, no small feat i'd say.)
YET Netanyahu's large ego is not unfounded. Parties in middle east are exerting influences on the world way disproportionately to their size of population and/or economical/military might. This, I’m afraid, can not be brushed aside by the talk of lobbies, or any number of political trickery. Such an uncalled for wielding of power/influences should alert the sensitive realist who is obliged to do real world power calculation.
Ukrainian holocaust was planned by jews and carried out by jews
Facts brougt to you from the free world
When you are talking holocausts, you ought to include one which was initiated by jews*, took place in the 30'ties, and the result of which may well have made some avenge it 10 years later on jews. I am talking about the Ukrainian holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor), which was planned in Moscov. This starvation of millions of Christian Ukranians in the 30'ties, as well as the suffering of millions of Christian Russians and Poles during WW2, have since 1945 been placed in the background compared to the fate of the jews. The fact is, of course, that being a national minority and being disliked by the ruling dictatorship, is allways perilous, and there is very little outside powers can do.
______________________
*) DOCUMENTATION.
ILLUSTRATED SUNDAY HERALD, February 8, 1920
Zionism versus Bolshevism.
A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People
By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
“In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/200538/1920-Churchill-Zionism-versus-Bolshevism
I agree with you, Netanyahu's comments about Iran are special pleading. But that's what you have to do if you represent a small client state of a superpower. Like a majority of Israeli voters, I hope Netanyahu will be the next prime minister. If I were voting for America's interests, I'd probably vote Meretz or Hadash.
Since I've posted comments strongly disagreeing with your analysis of the Middle East, I figure I might as well mention for whatever it's worth that I agree with a lot of it too. For instance, I agree with you on the Israel lobby. (I read the essay, haven't read the book.) I just haven't posted comments saying, "Ditto."
What's missing is that Iran's threats are also against the USA and the free world. If you check what has been said and the imagery used in many of the rallies, this becomes apparent.
The threat against Israel may or may not be real but it is probably a red herring; Iran knows if Israel is seen to be the target there will be enormous opposition to stopping their nuclear program. The mass psychology at play is borrowed from the Nazis.
blue13326: very well argued
Kenneth Sorensen: Were these Jews acting as Jews or as Communists? Are all Jews today retroactively responsible for them? Will you apply these rules to other identifiable groups?
Bibi's claim that Iran poses a bigger threat than the economic crisis is misleading and wrong in one other way: It also underestimates, or misrepresents, the extent to which the crisis is also affecting Israel, and how much worse it's going to get. It is true that it has suffered less than the average developed country, but most forecasts point to a deepening of the effects of the crisis in Israel and when it does happen I bet Netanyahu will be forced to change his tune.
That doesn't mean that economic woes will completely obscure security threats in the public eye, or especially in Bibi's public discourse, but it will become increasingly hard to sell the idea that Iran is the #1 priority.
As to the objection to the dichotomy between future and present challenges, I think it misses the point. The argument made by Prof. Walt seems to be that while the crisis is a REALITY, the Iranian bomb is just a POSSIBILITY, and not a very probable one for that matter. This by no means implies that Iran should not be attended to, only that it should not be awarded priority at this time, especially by those who don't have such a big stake in the Middle East (but also by President Obama, who should focus on coordinating a global response to this crisis instead of fostering protectionism).
Stephen, it always pays better like, a May Pole, if you remind your readers the theory you base your arguments on.
I would start like this:
According to the SATFP if a State's National Interest increase this causes the Balance of Threat changed in favour of the State (when other factors remain the same).
If Iran gets nuclear bombs.
This changes the Balance of Threat on the Globe and this effects every single State in different degrees. This can be measured using different standards of measure. This change effect the Treat for Israel more than the US or Columbia or Patagonia. That is why the Israeli leaders sound more concerned than the US Leaders and urge the US and other State by trying to convince them to flock behind them. But other States' Leaders may have other priorities concerned the Balance of Threat for their States, for example the US leaders may say:
"For the US if Iran gets nuclear bombs in fact this improves the Balance of Threat in the given vicinity in favour of the US because Israel's nuclear arsenal started overflowing the planned limit set up according to the National Interest of the US. Therefore, the US is not going to oppose Iran to get a few nuclear bombs. We are not a Client State to Israel!"
But then Israel's Leaders counter argue:
"Yes, you are _not_ the Client State, but we are the One!
And all those nuclear bombs are produced under your keeping eyes closed to increase your National Interest within the region and of course we believed that this will also increase our National Interest in the region as a Client State. Now you are trying to decrease our National Interest in favour of yours according to the SATFP, is that it?"
Then the US Leaders carry on:
"According to the SATFP Iran's obtaining nuclear bomb is just one element to effect the Balance of Threat and our National Interest. At the moment there is an economic crise which is likely to disturb this Balance more than Iran's bomb. We have to try to predict how this is going to effect the Balance of Threat in that region and in the World and howthis is going to effect the National Interest of the US. The whole balance might be changed due to economic factors.
For example Oil Price may fall and effect our existence in Iraq, as Cheney said "What is wrong with oil price going up?"...now he says "What is _not_ wrong with Oil Price going down?". Yes we understand that Iran's obtaining a nuclear bomb is more threat to Israel than to US but according to the SATFP we have to evaluate the situation to Our - the US National Interest. That's what our FP Guys doing in this Blog. If you are a Client State then behave like one, we _know_ what we are doing! Actually the Israel Lobby arguments were just a prelude to remind _our_ National Interets come first and if that is in accord with Israel's National Interests that is good for Israel, if not, as they ask "May G-d help them!" we are _not_ G-d, we are the United States of America!. BTW, we have heaps of options to keep the balance of threat out there, one of them is Pakistani option if our WMD sales people convince Iranian Leaders to buy the technology from US and let US watch it closely, why not? Aren't we selling other weapons to increase the US National Interests around there?! WMD is in the end another weapon, if we think in terms of weapons as National Interest. Alternatively we could equip another Client state out there with WMD like we did Israel and keep the balance of threat to our benefits. Again why not? Aren't we selling other weapons to increase the US National Interests around there?! WMD is in the end another weapon, if we think in terms of weapons as National Interest. As Our Dear Statesman Chaney would say "More weapons means more oil, more oil means cheaper "fill'r up!" for our tax payers, not to mension more jobs! Dear Fellow American citizens the future is rosier than you dream under your clever leadership's FP based on the SATFP - thanks to S.M.Walt's Blog and
Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen!"
Grand Sen~or
note:Guys/Dolls! pls don't respond my messages with expressions like:
Troll?
What is your diagnosis?
Get off the hash homie.
be more creative, try to develop alternative convo based on the SATFP;->>
But hey! I know that I am composing my messages in such a format that there is nothing left to reply to and no room left to reply. If I get a reply, this means that I didn't do my job properly;->
So far I am doing quite well;->>
Why is that so?!
Because there is no agreement on key concepts yet to develope an inter-active language yet.
Stephen!
I love your "search engine", it is great Mate, I enter "homie" and get the whole expression straight away "Get off the hash homie.", the rest is copy and paste;-))
Note to the Bloggers : If you have proof that this message is _abuse_ then don't bother to call me names, please just select the option "report abuse". I am not going to waste my time on such name callings. Thank you & have a nice weekend!
BTW, Iran has a constitution which is just a copy of the current mono-law, mono-nation, mono-leadership, mono-economy, mono-language, mono-this, mono-that proto-type monolithic constitutions. You can easily compare it to Israel's or the US'. Please don't tell me "what is a constitution?! what does it have to do with FP? Ha?! you dumb ...?"..I won't waste my time on such remarks too. I've heard them before, I am wearing the T-Shirt printed "Dumb ..." at the front and the back;->>
"we have never had, since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear weapons in hands of such a fanatical regime."
could he have been thinking of the regime he would like to lead next???
"Fanatical Regime" is not a term of the SATFP
"Fanatical Regime" is not a term of the SATFP, therefore it is useless according to SATFP.
If you have a different theory of FP, please be kind enough to supply it to us, so that we can understand what you say.
Would you rather assert:
"Iran commit morally dubious acts "
which is according to the SATFP axiom 5 every state do that;->>Which means one can also assert that
"Israel commit morally dubious acts "
or that
"The US commit morally dubious acts "
all of those assertions are according to the SATFP.
The SATFP is the FP Theory of this Blog and I love it;->>
It is like a Life Jacket, you wear it and just let yourself into the void - you are saved;->>
Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).
1. There exist states.
2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add, it is the Blog's theory, not mine).
3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.
4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.
5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)
6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
10. States to increase their National Interests, to decrease potential threat of other States, to assimilate them and to dominate them, impose their Constitutions to other States. (But of course this degenerates all constitutions to a mono-constitution which prepares the Competetive Arena to the favour of the State whose Constitution became the one and only dominant Constitution to pave the ground for so called Globalization - Global Dominance - Ein STAAT, ein LAND (the GLOBE), ein FUERER und ein VOLK where there exists NO THREATt, NO COMPETITIVE ARENA, NO WORRIES and bsst of all NO NEED TO FP - a Paradise on Earth if you believe;->>)
11. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)
12. Powerful States to rule or protect or increase their National Interests divide less powerful states ad infinitum.
13. A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision.
14. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling, dividing and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).
Grand Sen~or
Netayanhu was the one who used the term 'fanatical regime' not i... i am only quoting him..SATFP sounds like a lot of hot air... as for #11, it would appear that Netayanhu is taking the opposite approach to that and generally the usa have taken the opposite approach towards those countries that it is willfully working to ostracize - iraq previously and iran for the past however many years...
the SATFP is the compiled theory of the Blog.
If there is something missing in it complete it.
If there is somwthing wrong with it correct it.
If you find it useless then bring your theory!
What else I can say;->>
BTW, if you read the axion 11 it doesn't assert that this is the only way to "deterre a potential threat";->>
This SATFP is _not_ my theory of FP, it is this blog's.
From the very beginning I suggested you to re-compose your constitution. I see now point to improve the SATFP as long as the constitution you have is the constitution.
Grand Sen~or
states collude with other states to gang up on others, make war, rape and plunder... the SAFTP is a relatively polite "theory" that ignores an aspect of human nature that is often at work when states conflict...
You call as for #11 hot air??!
An American _presidential candidate_ saying that and you call it "hot air";->>
Obama didn't respond to him like that;->>
I am sure Bush wouldn't either...adding "if that doesn't deterre we would know how to..."
I don't know whom to turn to Mate;->>
I am patiently waiting for your alternative theory of FP.
An alternative to the SATFP.
Grand Sen~or
What is the big problem ... (updated)
What is the big problem facing the world today?
According to the SATFP, this question is not meaningfull. Maybe it should be formulated as follows:
"What is the big problem facing the US or majority of other States today in FP?
Economic problems?
Military problems?
Political problems?"
Because according to the SATFP, a state doesn't really care much about the problems of the World (Other States) unles those other states' problems some how effect her National Interest and the Balance of Threat.
Obviously Iran's having WMD capability will effect Israel's National Interest and Balance of Threat more than it should effect the US'. Of course Israel and Israel Lobby would do their best to protect Israel's National Interest and Balance of Threat by
exaggerating the Treat or
even by displaying an intention to retaliate to Iran
to the US and other States.
But Israel and the Lobby must not forget/ignore that the US and other states have their own National Interests and Balance of Threat to calculate too. So, compared to Israel's they may have different priorities of National Interet and Balance of Threat.
Especially currently when one compares Israel's Foreign Trade volume with the US' one may realize better why would a global economic crisis a greater Threat to the National Interest of the US than Israel's.
Israel and the Lobby have to take this into consideration seriously and calculate accurately before acting according to the SATFP. I would be very, very careful not to make this thing called "economic crisis" worse, because I know that when the times are dire the gentiles don't need much imagination to pick up scape-goats amongst you know who;->>
Grand Sen~or
Walt's singular obsession with Israel and 1 dimensional thinking
As usual Mr. Walt's opinining is characterized by his obsession with Israel and an even greater ignorance on the subject of both Israel and the wider Middle East, a subject which he loves to pontificate upon.
Firstly Walt's analysis is deeply flawed in that he propositions a false premise, the World is limited to solving only one crisis at a time.
However the worlds dependence on Middle East oil and the myriad connections oil supply and pricing has on economic recovery means you simply cannot disconnect economic recovery and a Nuclear Iran.
Of course a nuclear Iran presents challenges that Mr. Walt repeatedly shows he is not capable of comprehending.
The real threat of a Nuclear Iran is not that they will immediately upon completion launch them on Israel. (Altho even if this were the limit of Iranian objectives, how does Mr. Walt disconnect a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel from the Global economy? How for that matter does Mr. Walt disconnect even the instability of an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran?)
The real threat of a Nuclear Iran is that they will become much more aggressive in the region DIRECTLY CHALLENGING AMERICAN INTERESTS. They will be emboldened to support Terrorist movements. Iran will be able to operate behind a nuclear shield giving them a far greater freedom of operation as any future confrontations would immediately threaten to escalate to nuclear conflict and in their view make it almost impossible for the US to act forcing a US retreat.
Make no mistake a US retreat is the primary Iranian objective, eliminating Israel is simply part of this much wider objective.
Among the immediate targets could be Bahrain, Shia majority, or the North of Saudi Arabia with it's large Shia minority, a greater consolidation of the 'Shia Crescent', Lebanon to the west with Syria and Iraq firmly in place at the centre.
Then there is Afghanistan the forgotten war, and a war with no end in sight meaning a NATO and US commitment well into the next decade.
Afghanistan sits on Iran's border and only a fool, Mr. Walt?, believes they will continue to restrain themselves. They already supply the Taliban with weapons like the 50 calibre sniper rifles they purchased from Austria, or the IDEs the Taliban currently use.
Of course these are all matters lost on Mr. Walt in his singular obsession with Israel.
he propositions a false premise, the World is limited to solving only one crisis at a time.
No! this is not his premise. His premis is:
"Global economic crisis is greater threat which effects the National Interst of the US than Iran's increasing nuclear capability."
As I explained before, that may not be so for Israel, but that is the case for the US when you compare her wolume of trade with oyher states in contrast to Israel's.
Plus Iran is not the cause of this global economic crisis which even yourself do agree on that.
the worlds dependence on Middle East oil
How much of the world how much depends?
Bring your figures.
nuclear Iran presents challenges
According to the SATFP every increase of national interest of a state might be a threat to other states. Therefore Nuclear Iran might be a greater threat to Israel but as Professor Walt explained it doesn't pose as much threat to the US as the global economic crisis. He gave figures.
Make no mistake a US retreat is the primary Iranian objective, eliminating Israel is simply part of this much wider objective.
Every state has her own dreams, for example one can equally say that
Make no mistake Solomon's Kingdom is the primary Israeli objective, eliminating Iran is simply part of this much wider objective.
Professor Walt is aware of that and he is not here to make such mistakes, read the axioms of the SATFP please.
Among the immediate targets could be Bahrain, Shia majority, or the North of Saudi Arabia with it's large Shia minority, a greater consolidation of the 'Shia Crescent', Lebanon to the west with Syria and Iraq firmly in place at the centre.
one can equally say:
Among the immediate targets of Israel could be Gazza, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar oil rich areas consolidation of the Solomon's Kingdom', Lebanon to the west with Syria and Iraq firmly in place at the centre.
We all know that according to the SATFP.
But we have means to measure the threats and national interests of the states. We don't assume any state has a free ride for her dreams;->
Then there is Afghanistan the forgotten war, and a war with no end in sight meaning a NATO and US commitment well into the next decade.
How come you forgot Pakistan - Nuclear Pakistan??!!
What about Nuclear India and China?
Poor American they have to run around the world to chase threats after threats;->>Don't forget Putin;->>
But, don't worry I understand that as a Jew you will do your best to help the National Interest of Israel. Actually this is your right to do so. But it is also other states right to protect their own National Interests. That is what Professor Walt is doing here and while he is doing that he is giving invaluable advices to the Israel Lobby and Israel. He is advising you "do not act to make the global economic crisis worse! that wouldn't be in your extended to the US and EU national interests at all".
Better read his lips Mate! He is talking according to the theory. And you are talking bosh.
Look! I am not fond of this SATFP but it is a theory built on existing Constitution of the US and other proto-type constitutions including Israel's Constitution. What I mean is if such constitutions are given then the SATFP is quite usefull. But if you know better, then given the constitutions supply us your theory of FP so that we can compare it with the SATFP.
Good luck Mate!
Grand Sen~or
Of course these are all matters lost on Mr. Walt in his singular obsession with Israel.
I don't think what you are asserting is true.
Professor Walt is commenting according to the SATFP. In fact if you read his comments, he is giving good advice to Israel Lobby and Israeli leaders. As I also pointed out on one of my above postings.
For Professor Walt Iran is just another State on the Blance of Threat with limited capabilities and strong trade ties to the EU$. So, his evaluation of the situation is really independent from any of his obsessions if he has any as you claim, he is talking according to the theory - the SATFP. So, saying that he has this obsession, that obsession really doesn't help to refute his arguments. What you have to do is; Show him where he goes wrong according to the theory he is using here - the SATFP. If you can show a contradiction what he is asserting according to the SATFP, then he would listen to you and we would listen to you too.
Otherwise what you have been posting here is nothing more than a gossip in simple terms. In other terms you are labelling the Guy with "obsessed with Israel = anti-semit".
In summary, show us what did he assert is wrong according the SATFP and if he doesn't correct himself according to the SATFP, then we will jump on him and investigate according to which obsession of his he made such mistakes and sticks on them and call a shrinker to evaluate the case. Unless you do that, there is _no_ shrinker case whatsoever with Professor Walt's comments.
But, saying all that there is another way to critisize Professor Walt; you can bring your theory and demonstrate us that you can explain the phenomena better with your theory than Professor Walt's. Do it! rather than wasting your and our time with gossips and bosh talk and worst of it labelling.
Grand Sen~or
Your propositions are largely non sequiturs or false syllogisms
Your propositions are largely non sequiturs or false syllogisms, so I am not going to address them point by point.
Examples being "Israel's Constitution", Israel doesn't have a constitution. But again these are diversions and serve no other purpose other than to deflect.
I will again say this, you cannot disconnect the Middle East and the global economic crisis. It is a false choice. The world economy is literally fuelled by the Middle East. A nuclear armed Iran is simply to destabilising.
Iran has made it repeatedly clear that they seek the elimination of Israel. To accomplish this they would kill 6 million Jews a not un-ironic number. So yes Iran is a greater threat to Israel than to the USA, who said otherwise?
However that doesn't mean the US has no interest in making sure there is no nuclear exchange. Even if the US had no interest in either Israel or Iran they do have an interest in not seeing that part of the world they depend on evaporated.
Again I reiterate, the immediate threat is not a nuclear exchange. The immediate problems will be an emboldened Iran continuing to do what they are already doing, only much more aggressively.
And by doing what they are doing I mean destabilising the existing order by supporting Islamic terror groups, trying to effectuate regime changes to their liking.
Pakistan, India and China are sidebars not really relevant to the issue of Iran.
But since you bring it up, Pakistan should be of concern to everyone. They have a nuclear arsenal but it is unclear how they are secured and Pakistan's future is far from certain. It is not hard to imagine Pakistan taken over by Islamic radicals who would be happy to supply Nukes to any number of Islamic radicals.
I have no doubt as historians look back they will conclude that the US abandoning the Shah and embracing Zia and Pakistan to destabilise Afghanistan and Central Asia were the greatest strategic errors following World War Two in the 20th century with the consequences still far from over.
It is self evident Mr. Walt is obsessed with Israel and Jews. He writes a book about Jew and their supposed control of the US policy and most of his editorials are about Israel. Tho this should be disturbing by itself he compounds it with his constant displays of ignorance about the Middle East.
Also if you are going to use acronyms the rule is, define them in the first paragraph you use the term.
Israel doesn't have a constitution.
I think you double check your concept of "constitution".
Simply search internet for "Constitution of Israel" you may get what we mean by "constitution".
Your propositions are largely non sequiturs or false syllogisms, so I am not going to address them point by point.
I don't know what you are talking about, demonstrate us.
Are you talking about the axioms of the SATFP?
To qualify axioms as "false/true" is meaningless. There is no questioning about their being false/true otherwise they wouldn't be axioms. But you can qualify a theory as useless to explain and/or predict certain phenomena if it doesn't help and you can propose a better alternative theory demonstrating which is more comprehensive and useful. That is why I keep asking you bring your theory if you are not happy with the SATFP.
Even if you interpret an axiom as a factual proposition and establish that it is "false" that wouldn't help refute the theory as useless. It is K.Popper, the positivist who was claiming in such a case the theory is refuted. He realised his mistake later on. Because the theory owner can always argue that our theory is not useful in such a case, this shows only the limit of our theory with such an interpretation.
I think you are confusing axioms with factual propositions.
Axioms are more like conceptual remarks,They are formulated to establish grammatical rules for selected terms as part of a conceptual system (theory). So, they have nothing to do with "fact(s)". But of course you can generate factual propositions according to a theory through a lot of interpretations and than you establish if they are true/false.
The rest of your posting is just a repetition, bring your theory. Or better read some books in logic about axiomatic systems.
Grand Sen~or
Iran has NOT "made it repeatedly clear that they seek the elimination of Israel," as you stated. What Ahmadinejad said was that the zionist regime in Israel should pass from the pages of history. Peaceful regime change, like what happened in the USSR. He is an anti-zionist, whereas you are a zionist, and that's why you've bastardized what he said. He is not advocating for the killing of Jews; he wants the government in Israel to change so that it stops killing Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and maybe in the future also Iranians. He wants the government of Israel to belong to ALL the citizens of Israel and not to give preferential treatment to Jews.
Who cares what Netanyahu thinks?
Do you think "the Lobby" going to sidetrack Obama's focus on the economy, or is this just more obsessing about Israel?
Edit: "Third, it is remarkably self-centered for Netanyahu to declare..."
Astute "analysis" by the realist, who apparently thinks Israel/politicians from Israel are the only people who should not act in what they perceive as their own best interests. When they do it, they get pejoratively labeled as "self-centered".
I got the point. I contend you missed mine -- that it is in Netanyahu's interest to convince EVERYONE that Iran is a greater threat -- and the gratuitous swipe at him for being "remarkably self-centered" is simply that. After all, in the realist school everyone not under the sway of "the Lobby" behaves in a "self-centered" manner.
This type of bias permeates all of your writings about Israel.
David,
again Professor Walt is talking according to the SATFP.
What he is actually saying is:
"According to the SATFP it is Israel's National Interest her leadership to try to convince other States that Iran is a greater threat even if it is not a greater threat for Israel."
If you have a different theory then please bring it in.
Grand Sen~or
It's funny how when Walt and Mearshimer's book came out
That they both swore up and down how they weren't out to get the Jews and Israel.
And yet, after reading several columns written by Prof. Walt, I see a dinstict trend that shows an interest in us either as a personal meal-ticket for himself or a personal fixation beyond normal.
personal fixation beyond normal.
Guys! your problem is not whether Prof. Walt is normal or not. Your problem is not having a sound theory to counter Prof. Walt's arguments according to his theory.
You guys are not shrinkers here. You don't know what to do with Prof. Walt's arguments and get frustrated and end up calling him names;->
Let me show you the way out : Bring your theory and explain what Prof. Walt explains according to your theory to beat him;-> Otherwise you look like a joke.
There are ways to skin this Prof. Walt, I have already made a few suggestions but you are so blinded by his light&sound of his arguments you can't see&hear me;->>
This Guy is not going to move by your calling him not-normal, anti-semit...etc.
He keeps on demonstrating you the power of arguing acording to a theory over just arguing;->>
You look like a "Bashibozuk Alayi" in front of his orderly Roman Army;->>
and always he wins;->>
Grand Sen~or
I'll wait to see what Walt has to say for himself
Thanks, Sen~or, but you are missing my point. I expect the professor understands the point and will answer for himself IF he thinks he has a case.
And perhaps he could enlighten us about why, out of everything going on in the wide world of IR, and having spent so much ink on Israel already, he feels THIS is a topic worth addressing. I mean, other than Israel-obsessives, who cares what Netanyahu thinks? Does he think that Netanyahu will be able to harness the power of "the Lobby" and actually distract us from addressing the financial crisis? If not, then what?
I think the reason is obvious, but I am curious to hear the rationalization.
David, this is Walt's blog and he can talk about whatever he wants. Who are you to tell him what he can and can't talk about? If you are interested in another subject, why don't you start your own blog? Are you insinuating that people can't talk about Israel or they'll risk being called "anti-semitic?" Get a life!
Fulana,
Of course he can. And since he has opened comments up to the public, I can point out the biases in his posts and even ask why he thought the topic was important enough to rate a post.
And, hold on to your hat here...he can even comment on my comments, which he did, and furthermore even comment on my followup comments correcting him, which he did not, as I expected he wouldn't. He is big on "stimulating debate", apparently up to the point when he has to acknowledge an error or bias. :-)
Should I be surprised that of the two people who jump in to answer for Walt, one doesn't make sense and the other is trying to shut down debate? Or is this par for the course here?
As for trying to lay making the charge of anti-Semitism on me, you can stuff it. It is a common tactic of the "anti-Lobby" to cry wolf about charges of anti-Semitism. It is a attempt by the "anti-Lobby" to shut down legitimate debate and you see it a lot on these types of threads. Obviously, I never said anything about anti-Semitism or even implied it. You brought it up.
I look forward to interacting if you want to address the points in my post. If you are going to be the blog police and tell me what I should or should not be posting, don't expect a reply.
Regards,
David
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(45)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE