We've been reading for decades about how Iran is a massive military threat while Israel is a tiny, existentially vulnerable outpost. Logically, that would imply that -- from a pure realpolitik / national interest standpoint -- it would make sense for Barack Obama, who just became the first President since Jimmy Carter to talk on the phone to the head guy in Tehran, to do an August 23, 1939-style flip and ally with Iran at the expense of Israel.
It's an interesting thought experiment because listing why that it would be a very bad idea (which, of course, it would) makes reality clearer. Who would you less like to be the enemy of: Iran or Israel?
First, Iran is not much of a military threat. It's hasn't invaded anybody in at least a half-dozen generations. Overall, despite the advantages of oil and a more advanced Persian civilization compared to the Arab states, it remains a shambolic country, alternately prone to extremism and lassitude.
In contrast, Israel has demonstrated impressive will and resources over the decades at getting what it wants.
In contrast, Israel has demonstrated impressive will and resources over the decades at getting what it wants.
And, while Israel, contrary to what you hear on Fox, might not be quite the best friend America has ever had, you sure wouldn't want to have Israel for an enemy.
Posts
114 comments:
We should really think about normalizing relations with Iran. Short of a massive invasion we can't stop them from developing nuclear weapons, so ultimately sanctions going to prove pointless. And while the Iranians will never be our best buds, there isn't any reason to go out of our way to antagonize them.
Okay, this is kind of a dumb post.
Under such a scenario, Israel would no more be an "enemy" of the United States than it is an enemy of Russia today.
Dude, flipping the Persians has been my long term goal since, oh, about noon on 9/11. Ally with the Shia against the Sunni, ally with the Persian against the Arab. And piss off Whiskey!
Of course, since Amdocs has all those phone records, I might as well wish to be Prince of the Universe.
The Israelis are some scrappy fighters, god bless 'em. What concerns me are all the political commissar types that are steering the USA.
Israel manages to keep the liberal nutcase Jews under pretty good control.
Over there lefty Jews whine about how badly the African migrants are treated, but the Sabras ignore them and create concentration camps for third worlder "illegal infiltrators" in the Negev desert anyway.
Having Israel for an enemy would be great: we could stop pretending they're our friend (in any meaningful sense of the term), we could save $3 billion/year in foreign aid, and Israel policy would no longer be a driving force in American politics.
I have no problem with Israel existing. I'm just tired of it dominating our politics and costing us money, and I'm tired of pretending that their is really any threat to Israel's survival. They have nukes - lots of them. They're safe,.
OTOH, since Israel is our friend and ally, perhaps we can start adopting immigration policies similar to theirs.
IHTG said: Okay, this is kind of a dumb post.
Hunsdon said: Kind of depends on your perspective, I should say. But it's nice to hear that normalizing relations with Iran won't jeopardize our relationship with Israel!
Thought experiment of just a bald joke? Obama wouldn't be able to get in the door of a Democratic party function ever again.
The European Union seems to do ok with an Israel-hostile attitude. They sacralise (and fund) the Palestinians, and demonise Israel pretty heavily. These days no US President could afford to be hostile to Israel, due to the power of the USA's internal pro-Israel lobbies, not much to do with Israel itself. I think that's actually a relatively recent shift, ca the Clinton administration and the end of the Cold War.
Making peace with Iran would be a good idea in order to increase global stability, something that a hegemonic power ought to be doing. Not because the Shia would be a great ally to go fight Sunni al Qaeda, but because increasing peace & order is a good thing in itself, especially when you're the top dog.
"despite the advantages of oil and a more advanced Persian civilization compared to the Arab states"
It really has been stupid that we go around moralizing while keeping the seriously evil and depraved Gulf Arabs on our side.
You must not have watched this moment at the DNC last year. Support for Israel is a mile wide and an inch deep in the Democratic Party. Secular American Jews are unreliable supporters of Israel and the Dems' don't have enough Christian zionists to hold off the rabble indefinitely.
due to the power of the USA's internal pro-Israel lobbies, not much to do with Israel itself
Er, the one has something to do with the other, no?
Okay, now apply this logic to Russia and its enemies. Who would we rather have as an enemy, Russia, or the jihadists Russia opposes in Syria?
Luckily, Obama is not Hitler nor Stalin, he is the President of a more or less democratic republic. Despite his considerable powers as President, I don't think he could pull this off even if he wanted to. Can you say impeachment? While this is an interesting gedankenexperiment, I don't think it's within the realm of currently doable.
He would be essentially handing the 2016 election to republicans.
I hope he does it.
This is possibly the dumbest thing you've written Steve.
Israel is not America's most important ally.
Saudi Arabia is. And Iran matters because it and Russia are challenging us for control of the Gulf.
Steve -- do you like having a private car you can afford to fill up? Do you like not living in say, East LA? Or South Central?
In many ways Steve, you're naive and frankly, a sucker.
The choice is not Iran vs. Israel. It is Iran vs. the loathsome, but vitally important Saudis.
Going "Hitler/Stalin" would be about as stupid as Stalin trusting Hitler. Which was very, very stupid.
Somehow I suspect that Israel and Iran don't completely hate one another.
Peter
>>Moshe Die Anne said...
due to the power of the USA's internal pro-Israel lobbies, not much to do with Israel itself
Er, the one has something to do with the other, no?<<
Not much - I don't think Israel directs and controls the major pro-Israel lobbies, they're very much self-starting! The New York Ashkenazi Jewish elites who are the most powerful force in America do what they want to do, not what the Israeli government tells them to do (unlike say CAIR, which is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, I get the impression that even AIPAC is more indigenous than Israel-directed). Less powerful pro-Israel groups such as the Christian Zionists and many mainstream American Christian groups are even less related to the Israeli government.
The Saudi government puts far more effort into influencing the US than the Israeli govt does. Mostly for practical reasons; everyone hates the Saudis so they need to lobby/bribe hard, whereas the Israelis start with lots of powerful friends. But also, Israel was founded with a 'Prussian' ethos of self reliance and frontier spirit, this doesn't go well with the subtle arts of diplomacy.
This is such a dumb post that there isn't really much to be said about it. The one interesting part is the implicit concession in "contrary to what you hear on Fox" that the overwhelming majority of the media that's to the left of Fox is pretty hostile to Israel.
You would think this would be obvious to any reasonable person, but the radical left and the paleocons/white nationalists/whatever they're calling themselves these days will claim (and maybe even believe) that the NY Times, CNN etc. are a pack of Zionist stooges.
It's a relief to see that Sailer still has some grasp on reality, even if his readers don't always pick up on it.
Cont'd:
So lets get this straight. You endorse Obama's actions (which right there is a problem, Obama HATES HATES HATES America). Throw away US foreign policy objectives since 1944 (US domination of the Persian Gulf) and the Carter Doctrine.
All so America can avoid any action to get rid of Iran's nukes, and be forced out of the Gulf. So Obama can make his base happy and get oil to say, $200 a barrel which is where Putin and Iran want it?
And what does the average White Middle Class American get out of this wonderful deal? Private cars no longer affordable. Because you can't fill them up. Being forced to move to ghetto town to take advantage of ghetto town mass transit. "Diversity" meaning Whitey-beat down on every corner. And for what? So Obama can once again avoid doing anything? So he can make Iranian born Valerie Jarrett happy?
Iran wants nukes not because of Israel (they're just the demonstration "this can happen to you" target) but because they want to force the Saudis to reduce oil production and thus gain a giant windfall which will keep their regime (and Putin's) intact for generations. [Putin wants Israel destroyed because the Israeli/Cyprus gas fields are a direct competitor to his 85% European Nat Gas Market corner.]
Israel is a tiny country of about five million Jews who nearly all want peace and are doomed because of it (and their rampant PC which won't even allow them to close their borders and throw out the African migrants there). Ultimately, Israel does not matter.
The Saudis DO matter, because they alone can pump enough oil cheaply to keep the US economy semi-functional.
Do you WANT Mad Max? Is that really your aim?
And no, fracking won't change anything. The oil wells are productive often for a lifetime measured in months, new wells have to be drilled as soon as they go into production. There is a limitless amount almost of oil available, but it is highly costly for most of it to be pumped (that it, it requires more energy to pumped out than it produces).
'...the first President since Jimmy Carter to talk on the phone to the head guy in Tehran...'
And how well did that go?
Oh, brother. Read Matt Matthews "Caught Unprepared: The 2006 Hebollah-Israeli War" and tell me more about the vaunted Jewish military. Israel's soldiers got their asses handed to them thoroughly and at every level when they faced armed, trained men instead of unarmed Palestinian women and children. What a joke.
Other than its 200+ fission warheads--I still doubt they are able to do a fission-fusion bomb--no one should fear Israel on the battlefield. Granted Israel's 200 warheads are the greatest global threat today to Europe, Russia and the Middle East, but let's tamper down the "great Jewish" warrior propaganda a bit.
Also, I certainly grant that in terms of political sabotage and espionage Israel and its backers are among the first ranks. But as America's demographics continue downhill, no amount of Jewish influence and money will be able to keep Israel from collapsing in the next 50 years.
Bottom line Steve, while I respect your insight into other matters (and Pat Buchanon for that matter) on this you are, not verging, are on the economically and tecnologically illiterate side.
Iran and Russia are our enemies because they, having nothing but oil to sell, and massively inefficient crookdom gangsters, depend on massively higher energy prices. We have our own crookdom gangster political class but we depend mostly on cheap energy and oil. Yes we have fracking, and no its entry on the world market has not changed energy prices one bit, if anything WTI and Brent are both around the $100-$110 range. By contrast the go-go Clinton years had (you check this at the St. Louis Fed) oil prices at $17-20 a barrel. Even with inflation that's significantly lower.
The Fed has been pushing on a string with near zero interest rates, which has had no effect but to prop up hedge fund and bank assets (for now). Cheaper energy prices by contrast put money in every consumer's pocket. Not only is the fill up price lower but everything that moves: food, clothing, electronics, etc. gets signficantly cheaper.
You're arguing milk should be, oh I dunno not $2 a gallon now but $6 or $8 (energy is a massive input in dairy farming to use one example).
You and Buchanon have a naive and overly moralistic view of the world, which does not coincide with reality.
Iran's nukes are about who will control the world price of oil and how high it will go. Will it be our price, somewhere around $100 or Iran and Russia's price (this is why Putin is their best friend) of around $200 or so?
If you like your nice life, which is very, very nice by historical standards, you need to get rid of Iran's nukes and prop up the disgusting (but US dependent) oil oligarchies and monarchies in the Gulf.
This has been US policy since FDR and even JIMMY CARTER of all people endorsed it. It is one of the primary reasons we have a Navy. Its why we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait. It is why left him alone, and then when he was too erratic and unstable we got rid of him.
As yourself, why do Iranian mullahs even care about Israel, which is nowhere near them, can't do much to them save nukes, and being democratic and small are subject to endless internal fights and divisions and dithering?
Iran has supported puppet regimes from Assad to Morsi to Iraq's new guy to produce pressure on the Saudis to ratchet down their oil production. That's why Russia backs them. If Israel did not exist and had been destroyed in 1948 we'd have the same problem.
The world does not have that much (cheap) oil and what there is lies in the Arabian peninsula. But yes, lets indulge in isolationist moralism and pacifism because that worked out so well for us in 1941.
Israel has nukes.
Last add, every President from Carter onward, and yes this includes Reagan, has faced this problem.
Iran is not our enemy because of Israel, or our past support of the Shah, or any junk like that. It is our enemy because they want the Saudis to lower oil production by half or more. Maybe much lower.
Doing something about Iran is more costly than Reagan's two-day naval air strikes because it is almost certain they already have nukes off the shelf from North Korea, married to ICBMS. They probably don't work very good, but good "enough." Their nuke program is create the marriage of nukes and ICBMs domestically with a demonstration of what they could to do Riyadh on say, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
Obama is very likely to wave "peace in our time" pieces of paper, demonstrating how peaceful and outreachy he is, because it is the easiest thing to do. When Reagan was faced with real challenges in getting rid of the Mullahs, he balked. Same with Bush, Clinton, and Bush again. Each time they punted, because getting rid of Iran's nukes will be harder and harder. Now it requires a fairly intensive bombing campaign and ground invasion designed to break things: dams, roads, bridges, electrical grids to make Iran's highly dispersed nuke program components as useless as the South's cotton and military supplies rotting in warehouses after Sherman wrecked only 200 yards of rail. It would have been fairly easy under Reagan and very costly now under Obama but could be done then and now.
It won't because the cost can be passed down the years. Like smoking or eating bonbons all day or drinking all the time.
So you can bet Obama will do just that. But it will cost us all big time. And the fault is our own political system and failure to appreciate how dependent we are on cheap Saudi oil. Ultimately the American people are to blame, for wanting a feel-good pacifist, utopian, isolationist fantasy instead of the ugly reality.
Israel, however capable it is militarily against its feckless Arab enemies, is no threat to the US. Steve does not suggest how Israel, which is entirely dependent on the US for its continued existence, could threaten this country.
On the other hand, Iran, if equipped with nuclear weapons, could threaten the oil fields of the Gulf and could close the Strait of Hormuz.
Obama clearly is not going to make Iran an "ally." The pretense of the US/Israel alliance will be maintained. But it seems very clear that Iran is going to be allowed to become nuclear-capable. The fig leaf will be that, even while it has enough enriched uranium for nuke warheads, it will not actually create warheads and put them on missiles. The capability will be enough to give Iran the leverage it seeks.
Right cause what has Iran ever done to us? Israel didn't arm the rebels who killed American soldiers and plunged Iraq into chaos. That was Iran.
A nuclear Iran means we will lose at least one city to a nuclear attack in the next 40 years. Maybe it won't launch from an Iranian ICBM, but good look keeping one from ending up in the hands of some 12th Imam believing nut case. That's Iran for you. I think part of the problem here is that everyone is so autistic that Carl Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction goes right over everyone's head because what's a friend anyway? But really the third comment says it all. This is all about spite. You guys have no idea about how much Iran hates America, but you really really really hate Israel, and whisky (the one person that's right one person who isn't a pure isolationist bj artist for Russia) so sure lets just let Iran develop nukes what could go wrong. Because what's the worst that can happen is such a conservative attitude.
Also I love this whole advanced Persian culture bit. Advanced I guess until they move near Steve and then they are whats the term again Men with Gold Chains. Yea Steve obviously just adores Persian culture. Maybe we are just getting all the low grade Iranians---thinks about history of Iran Revolution. No that isn't right at all pretty much the top of the barrel.
If we remove the sanctions on Iran, pistachio prices will come down. That is more important than anything get from Israel.
Without US support Israel would not have that much power. Having no support from Israel is no big deal, because Israel provides nothing of value to the US, other than acting as a colonial outpost in the middle east (which cannot be admitted in polite company).
In the early days of the rule of the Shah it was thought by many that an Iran-Israel alliance would be a logical arrangement. No disputed territory or common borders between them, Arab Palestinians not being of any intrinsic concern to the Iranians, neither country being Arab and both feeling the need to keep the Arab countries from becoming able to threaten or otherwise hinder them. That idea went off the rails somewhere along the line. The US feeler towards Iran may not signal the dropping of Israel but rather could be a negotiation for it as well as for us, sounding out the Iranians as to how far they're willing to go. As ideology gets old and previous strategies go astray a sense of pragmatism could set in and the idea of a natural alliance could return.
Matthew said...
Having Israel for an enemy would be great: we could stop pretending they're our friend (in any meaningful sense of the term), we could save $3 billion/year in foreign aid, and Israel policy would no longer be a driving force in American politics.
Obvious downside:
The Israelis might spy on us and steal secrets. Word on the street is that they are pretty good at such stuff..
I don't think it matters either way.
Iran Friend/Israel Enemy, Iran Enemy/Israel Friend, Iran Enemy/Israel Enemy, Iran Friend/Israel Friend.
None of that matters at all from a military standpoint. These countries are a long way from us. Culturally, socially, diplomatically, economically they just don't interface with us in any way.
Well unless you have some fixation on "Empire."
And before someone brings up the oil issue, Israel doesn't have any. Iran has seen much better days as an oil producer (though they still kick major butt as a natural gas producer.
The only argument is the fact they both exist in a dangerous neighborhood, where some of the neighboring countries still have some of the cheapest oil in the world to produce.
Now one way or another the world is going to wean it's way off of oil. I used to think it would be a traumatic, world shaking event.
Now I think it will be some combination of economic stagnation (for some people in flyover country), or something no one notices (Boston/NY/LA, etc.)
Take oil out of the equation and no one has much interest in the Middle East. And I think that one way or another oil will be taken out of the equation.
Though to be truthful, it your main aim was to suck up to, and influence Oil Producers, you'd probably be best served to be enemies of Israel and Iran.
Well except for the fact that the Shia run Iraq as much as anyone, and that is probably the last major area where you could reasonably expect to find large, easily developed oil fields, that haven't already been developed and are in decline (Saudi Arabia).
Funny how that works. The War Nerd had a theory that Bush and Cheney were Iranian Moles.
Sometimes it seems reasonable.
I hope so. I think it would be the height of irony since 80% of American Jews voted for Obama.
And why is Israel so good at getting what it wants? Because it has stolen U.S. tech and manipulated its government into allying with it in the first place. The Iranians are an intelligent people. Decouple with Israel and the tide may soon turn.
I find this very plausible. All it would take is a meaningless US "deal" with Iran, a US declaration in support of a Palestinian state, a President whose heart lies with the Third World and US Secretary of State who looks like Herman Munster. Check, Check, Check, Check.
One can only hope. But unless Jewish donations to the Democratic Party suddenly dry up, I don't see it.
Nixon might go to Tehran, but we are not so fortunate as to have a man of his courage and vision in the White House, nor are we likely to ever again.
Okay, now apply this logic to Russia and its enemies. Who would we rather have as an enemy, Russia, or the jihadists Russia opposes in Syria?
We should be enemies with everyone in Syria.
Israel is overrated in just about every way. Who do they ever fight? And how much damage could Israel do to the U.S. as an enemy? Having Israel as an ally isn't working out that well.
Or we could be like Russia and China, which adopt a wary and transnational relationship to both Iran and Israel, aware that both have sophisticated diplomatic and intelligence services and are best not needless antagonized, but also best not drawn too close less they dupe their big brother into being their obedient proxy.
But that would require a level of sensibility and skill one does not usually see in the government of the late American Republic . . .
"We've been reading for decades about how Iran is a massive military threat while Israel is a tiny, existentially vulnerable outpost. Logically, that would imply that -- from a pure realpolitik / national interest standpoint -- it would make sense for Barack Obama, who just became the first President since Jimmy Carter to talk on the phone to the head guy in Tehran, to do an August 23, 1939-style flip and ally with Iran at the expense of Israel."
That's backwards. Realist scholars say you should ally with the weaker party, because the stronger country may be a threat to you. Either way, both states are potential threats in the international system. So you try to make the strongest weaker. That's why the British were always so obsessed with making sure Germany did not dominate Europe.
"The European Union seems to do ok with an Israel-hostile attitude."
Meh, the European Union trades hugely with Israel. Perhaps the unseen hand of Uncle Sam is behind this. I suspect so, and that makes the US very important to Israel beyond the military realm, but...the Israelis do have a few things to trade, no? the pro-Pal. stuff is atmospherics that Israelis discount.
"Relations between Israel and the European Union are generally positive on the economic level, though affected by the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on the political level."
From my time in Israel, Israelis struck me as on the whole a happy people, who took pride & comfort in being part of a larger whole.
Yep, I was looking on the outside in, and most of my personal relations were with Middle Eastern Jews and not Ashkenazim, but both groups struck me as realistic survivor type folks with their heads screwed on in the right direction. They were not the worrying type.
Of course, my observations are out of date, and maybe now they are just modern f***ups like the rest of us.
Since it seems that Israel's secret service has been fairly effective at killing off Iranian nuclear engineers, I could imagine that Israel would welcome the U.S. allying with Iran. Without nukes, Iran isn't a real threat to Israel, unlike many of the other countries we might consider as allies.
possible typo in first line ... relatively few non-Iraqis have described the current Iranian regime as a "military" threat. I would guess almost all (nobody keeps count of these things) commentators across the spectrum have described the current Iranian regime as a war crime threat, as opposed to a military threat. To clarify, compare the Khomeini regime's clear victory goals in the horrible Iran Iraq war from a few decades back with the future triumphs publicly wished for by various parts of current Iranian leadership (militarily, understandable desire for control of Persian gulf, territorial gains along a few borders, protection of current regime from extraterritorial force-outs; non-militarily, other, non-excusable goals). Finally, someone should mention somewhere on every thread like this that the disconnect between the govt and the people is bigger in Iran than almost anywhere else in the world.
Whiskey's right Steve and pat b will sell out their entire pro-family/ dirt gap/ affordable family formation rigamarole at the first chance of getting a free punch at Israel's nose. It's embarrassing frankly. This is the same country that paints death to America on its missiles. Lets not forget that Iran hates because of our "realist/paleocon" support of the shah. It wasnt neo-cons behind operation Ajax. No it was that liberal wasp leadership that Steve et al longingly lament.
Bitterness makes you stupid and the kind of movement whose genesis is in Mel Bradford not getting some podunk national commission on humanities post, which is wha created the paleocons, is gonna be pretty laced with bitterness. So yea basically what seperates the Jews from the paleocons is that country club memberships are slightly higher stakes that NAH or whatever appointments.
"The Israelis might spy on us and steal secrets. Word on the street is that they are pretty good at such stuff."
Word on the street is that pretending they're our ally only makes them better at such stuff.
Why is Saudi Arabia our most important ally? We get more oil from Canada, and we're producing more oil domestically today than we have in years.
Whiskey's right Steve and pat b will sell out their entire pro-family/ dirt gap/ affordable family formation rigamarole at the first chance of getting a free punch at Israel's nose. It's embarrassing frankly. This is the same country that paints death to America on its missiles. Lets not forget that Iran hates because of our "realist/paleocon" support of the shah. It wasnt neo-cons behind operation Ajax. No it was that liberal wasp leadership that Steve et al longingly lament.
You and whiskey are completely disingenuous. Steve and the paleos like Buchanan would never sell out their families or nation because that is exactly where their loyalties lie. It is part of the definition of being a paleo that you put God, family and country first. Hence, the epithet of "isolationists" that is continually thrown around to discredit those who don't put Israel, or any foreigners for that matter, among their top three concerns.
Now unless you and whiskey can show me that you visit and post comments on neo-con and Jewish blogs to criticize them for their support of policies that are bad for America such as amnesty, open borders, free trade, endless interventions, etc., then I am going to assume that America is not your top priority.
Given a choice between Steve and the paleos who put America first, and you and whiskey who put Israel first, I'll side with the former.
Just because the paleos don't want an unnecessary war with the Iranians doesn't mean they want them immigrating here. You do realize it is the neocons and the Israeli-firsters in this nation who support the "proposition" nation nonsense, and are partly responsible for Iranians and other non-Europeans flooding into our nation. Yet your anger seems to be directed at those who would preserve America.
anon:
"On the other hand, Iran, if equipped with nuclear weapons, could threaten the oil fields of the Gulf and could close the Strait of Hormuz."
Iran can threaten the oil fields and close the Strait of Hormuz any time it wants with speed boats + Revolutionary Guard, which it already has. The Gulf Arab states are militarily completely incompetent. Even if Iran had nukes she could not threaten to first-strike them vs US assets in the Gulf; they would only be useful to deter US attack.
>>d- said...
"The European Union seems to do ok with an Israel-hostile attitude."
Meh, the European Union trades hugely with Israel. Perhaps the unseen hand of Uncle Sam is behind this. I suspect so, and that makes the US very important to Israel beyond the military realm<<
Yes, but it's not an unseen hand, it's quite visible actually. A UK defense company guy explained to me recently: basically by US anti-Israel-sanctions law, in any multinational company's procurement contract they **have to** include stuff purchased from Israel in the deal, or they can be accused of having sanctions vs Israel and sued in US courts. So Isaeli tech is ubiquitous because multinationals *have to* buy it. So whenever his company develops a weapon system to sell to the UK govt they *have to* include parts bought from Israel. Because of US law, not UK law.
The only reason that Hezbollah wasn't thoroughly routed was Western Media pressure. In a world of drone strikes to kill citizens who have not been charged or convicted of any crime, this double standard imposed on Israeli military behavior is absurd. Israel could, quite simply, kick the shit out of any group of Islamic warriors very quickly if the media would shut up and let them do it. The Arabs always claim s victory after they lose a war- a face-saving maneuver for internal propaganda purposes.
Assuming that future wars will be like past wars is the reason France built the Maginot line- and look how that turned out. In 50 years time, Israel could easily be turning out intelligent robot warriors by the hundreds daily. Assumptions about manpower diffetences will be on a whole different level. The Arab states are regressing, not progressing. As the U.S. moves away from Middle
East oil, Israel will do what it has to do, and the media won't care. Like Americans care a lot less about Russia v the Chechens after the Boston Bombing. Just like we no longer hear about how horrible Israel's border walls are-because they work.
Hepp says:
"That's backwards. Realist scholars say you should ally with the weaker party, because the stronger country may be a threat to you. Either way, both states are potential threats in the international system. So you try to make the strongest weaker."
Yeah, I think you're right and I'm wrong.
Steve Sailer:
"Yeah, I think you're right and I'm wrong."
'Tall poppy' policy - Britain allies with weaker France vs stronger Germany.
'Bandwagon' policy - Britain allies with stronger America vs weaker Russia.
These are both legitimate strategies. Western powers generally prefer Tall Poppy to Bandwagon, while in east-Asia Bandwagon is more common. But either can work or fail. WW1 is a good example of Tall Poppy failing disastrously by creating two very well balanced power blocs to devastating effect. Britain has attempted Tall Poppy in the EU (support weaker France vs stronger Germany), a continuation of long term European strategy, and it has failed disastrously because France has settled on a Bandwagon strategy of allying with strong Germany vs the weaker European nations; a policy which has worked well for France. Conversely Britain's Bandwagon policy of maintaining a close alliance with the USA since 1945 has arguably worked pretty well.
Overall my impression is that hegemonic powers do best with Tall Poppy and weaker powers do best with Bandwagon, so you get the common situation where the first rank power allies with the third rank power to keep the second-rank power down. But a bandwagon alliance of first + second vs third can also work and can be the best for maximum stability. Major wars are unlikely when one side thinks there's no chance of victory, which is the normal effect of 1+2 vs 3. Whereas when it's 1+3 vs 2 it's much more likely that circumstances may arise where #2 thinks it can win a fight.
>> Charlesz Martel said...
The only reason that Hezbollah wasn't thoroughly routed was Western Media pressure<<
Obviously with sufficient commitment Israel could have won. But it would be silly not to also recognise that Hezbollah put up a good fight. I'm sure the Israeli military recognises that.
Anonydroid at 4:46 said: Right cause what has Iran ever done to us? Israel didn't arm the rebels who killed American soldiers and plunged Iraq into chaos. That was Iran.
Hunsdon said: This is jaw-droppingly stupid. (Most things connected with our Mesopotamian adventures have been jaw-droppingly stupid, so I shouldn't be surprised that this is.)
Iraq was plunged into chaos when the United States invaded and overthrew it's ruling regime.
A UK defense company guy explained to me recently: basically by US anti-Israel-sanctions law, in any multinational company's procurement contract they **have to** include stuff purchased from Israel in the deal, or they can be accused of having sanctions vs Israel and sued in US courts. So Isaeli tech is ubiquitous because multinationals *have to* buy it. So whenever his company develops a weapon system to sell to the UK govt they *have to* include parts bought from Israel.
That sounds preposterous. Got any verifiable source?
Nuclear Iran will mean nuclear Saudi Arabia next year. But there is nothing to be afraid of. Saudi Arabia never invaded anyone.
Going "Hitler/Stalin" would be about as stupid as Stalin trusting Hitler.
Stalin never trusted Hitler. He expected Hitler would be locked into a long deleterious war with France and England and the USSR would eventually be able to pick up the pieces from the wreckage. It's not a good comparison for the US throwing over Israel for Iran. A better comparison might be the 19th century when England abandoned it's traditional close ties with Germany, a country whose ruling family was closely related to the English ruling family, to ally with France, the bosom enemy of Britain for centuries.
>> Charlesz Martel said...
The only reason that Hezbollah wasn't thoroughly routed was Western Media pressure<<
You keep telling yourself that.
In fact, it was exactly the opposite. The US and Western Europe gave Israel the green light to wipe out Hezbollah as an effective fighting force, and it was the US and Western Europe intervention in the UN and through negotiations that kept Israel from suffering a more strategic defeat.
From reservists to Israeli elite units, they were mauled by Hezbollah, in many cases refused to enter battle, and retreated leaving behind comrades and wounded. No amount of Israeli airpower or technological advantage could change the fundamental truth on the ground: Israeli troops attempting offensive action were thoroughly bad and in close-contact action were cowardly. Again, beating up on defenseless women and children for decades is not the stuff of which a great warrior tradition thrives.
Hezbollah had 10k missiles in 2006. Hezbollah now has 50k missiles. Do you think if Israeli leaders were confident in their military's abilities they would be permitting such a threat to increase. They have no choice and tell their people a missile shield defense will be sufficient.
The most hilarious part of the whole 2006 fiasco was that Hezbollah only called up a single brigade to defend its position, while a good half of the Israeli army and reserves took part.
There's no way to spin it. Israeli troops in 2006 (and now) are pathetic. Israeli leaders know that. The US and Europe know that. The Arabs know that.
"Nuclear Iran will mean nuclear Saudi Arabia next year. But there is nothing to be afraid of. Saudi Arabia never invaded anyone."
How come North Korea going nuclear didn't lead to nuclear Japan or nuclear South Korea? Probably because those countries could rely on the United States. The Gulf Arab states would probably do the same, rather than go through the headache of trying to develop a nuclear program in defiance of the rest of the world.
I love people who make comments like American Jewish support of Israel being "a mile wide and an inch deep".
Do they know any Jews? The ones I know may not express any overt support, but that's simply because Israel hasn't faced any serious existential threats in a while, despite their efforts to make us think there are.
If that threat were ever manifest, you'd see an entirely different and overt level of support from American Jews.
Hunsdon said: "Iraq was plunged into chaos when the United States invaded and overthrew it's ruling regime."
Spot on. And further to the point, the imbecilic Paul Bremer decided to dismantle their army, rather than de-Baath it and send it back out to maintain order.
This decision is all the more puzzling in that, prior to that war, the post-WW2 "nation building" in Germany was cited as proof we could "nation build" in Iraq (ignoring the obvious HBD point - that Germany was filled with Germans while Iraq was filled with...not Germans).
One of the first things the Allies did in Germany was cut out and prosecute the true Nazis but leave in place Wehrmacht officers that either weren't Nazis or had signed up purely for career reasons. This was fairly easy to do given the German habit of record-keeping.
If we were going to follow a "look how we rebuilt Germany" plan, it might have made sense to keep some of the central aspects of that plan.
Alas, it seems learning from history is verboten these days. I suppose it doesn't square with boundless hubris.
"Nuclear Iran will mean nuclear Saudi Arabia next year. "
If Saudi Arabia goes nuclear, it will only be because we sell them nukes.
Good luck "preserving" America with oil at $200 and creeping ever upward. And guess what it won't be the Hollywood crowd (who Steve defends at every chance) or the East Coast elites that will feel the pinch. Frankly it won't be me either I live in Texas. It will be all you sons of the soil, hard scrabble founding stock types (sarc) that will be effected. Good look forming a family when your commute from the suburbs cost 50 dollars both ways.
That is what you are accepting with a nuclear Iran. With nuclear missiles Iran can permanently close the Straight of Hormuz not just for a few hours like they do now. As in American tankers can never enter the Straits or we will nuke Rome or Paris or whatever. Look how North Korea acts for an idea of what a nuclear Iran will do. But instead of opposing this, which will be a disaster for oil prices and consequently the white working class this site claims to advocate for, Steve and Pat gleefully count down the days until Israel gets its come comeuppance. I guess I just don't really see where Pat and Steve put the working class first when the working class's interest conflict with their hobby horses. Yes, they are voices of sanity on immigration, but they don't like immigration either and don't benefit from it. The interest of the WC just happen to coincide with Steve and Pat's interests. Which to be perfectly honest isn't really a big deal to me. I'm not working class and frankly I think this site gets a little to close to class warfare for me. I'm not WC. But it is a big part of their soi disant identity and basically the crux of their critique of the current Republican leadership. The fact is when an issue comes down the pike that pits the working class's interest against Pat and Steve's pet issues, like a nuclear Iran humiliating Israel, then you can bet the working class gets the shaft. Same with Hollywood, for Steve, which has pumped out pure poison into the heartland but can count on Steve's complete loyalty in coming to its defense. Heck Steve has even managed to work himself into a lather over digital pirating (which I too believe is stealing but can't really get that work up about considering that it is Hollywood who is the whom in this case)
No one ever disproves Whisky's point about how Iran and Russian are hostile powers with inimical interests because of their reliance on oil. Putin doesn't give a crap about you paleocons. Nothing would make him more happy than your entire disposal income being consumed by your fuel budget. Who/whom. For Putin you are the whom. Whisky's analysis of the situation is pure Ockham's Razor. The seller always wants a sellers market and you are the buyer. One of the best things a government can do is guarantee is citizens low energy cost. The US government, in one of its few salutary characteristics, is committed to that goal. Its simple friend/ enemy distinction, the basis of political decision making, but istevers would rather crush on Putin's bare chest than apply manly logic to the situation.
"A UK defense company guy explained to me recently: basically by US anti-Israel-sanctions law, in any multinational company's procurement contract they **have to** include stuff purchased from Israel in the deal, or they can be accused of having sanctions vs Israel and sued in US courts. So Isaeli tech is ubiquitous because multinationals *have to* buy it. So whenever his company develops a weapon system to sell to the UK govt they *have to* include parts bought from Israel."
This is - no question - the most unhinged comment posted here - ever.
I worked in US defense contracting. I have seen procurement contracts from every major US defense contractor under contract to the federal government. There is no such clause in the Federal Acquisition Regulations or the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations or in any standard clause of any contractor. Those regulations are on line - you can look them up yourself. Anti-boycott legislation does not mandate any such thing either.
Most defense products do not have any Israeli technology in them at all. Israeli tech is not ubiquitous - it is simply very competitive. The UK defense industries are also competitive and I am sure they do not like having one more player in the game; like every business, they would rather have the field alone. If this is the excuse this person is using as to why Israeli technology proliferates, at the expense of the English, it is one of the worst ones I have ever heard.
The UK has a very large defense industry - they have been accused in the UK press and government for bribing Saudis to get contracts, an option unavailable to the Israelis of course.
Whatever Hundson. So I suppose they didn't also invade our embassy either. Iraq was not in chaos until Iranian arms ignited sectarian conflict. That is a simple fact. There was no chaos in Iraq for at least 16 months falling the invasion. You have to be honestly stupid if you think you are going to flip the Persians. Because the "Persians" all live next door to Steve now. The people who run Iran came into power largely in opposition to the shah's attempts a Persianification of Iran. The default identity in Iran is Shia islam. Of course the sucess of the Green Revolution would have been a boon to your diplomatic ambitions, but I am going to guess you where with the Supreme Council. You know in case Israel might accidentally benefit.
Then again armchair Kissingers have always been able to match Kissinger on ego its the pesky knowledge and understanding that has been the tricky part.
Why would I post comments on Jewish or neo-con blogs. I hardly agree with them on anything and I know they won't be convinced. I have no doubt in my mind their support of Israel is emotional (for good reason) and likely nonnegotiable. I am not asking you guys to back Israel (of whom I don't really have much of an opinion), but to stop letting your disdain for Israel lead you into supporting horrible outcomes like a nuclear Iran. I am even of the belief that if we could trade Israeli territory for a guarantee against Iranian nukes then so be it. I simply do not want $200/ barrell oil spewing money into Putin and Iran's pockets. Again the working class needs cheap energy. Iranian nukes mean expensive energy. This isn't difficult. Look at it this way who is more concerned about Israel. A) Someone like me who for reasons unrelated to Israel simply doesn't want ever escalating price of oil or b) a person like Hundson who before every issue checks the Likud Party platform and then supports the obvious. I don't know the demographics of isteve. My guess it is largely unmarried 45-60 year old whites without families. So in that case you guys are welcome to prioritize Israel being stymied because you most likely aren't at the family forming stage. Indeed, most of you probably live in densely packed urban centers where the price of gasoline isn't a significant factor. But understand that you are making that choice at the expense of the WC. But if you are going to use AFF as a club to oppose immigration, free trade, ibanking, and whatever else a little class warfare provides a nice lubricant for you sure as hell better be willing to at least try to prevent Iran from going nuclear
How about none of the above? Why do we need "allies" in the middle east at all? Will these allies be there for us if we're ever invaded by Quebec or the Bahamas? We should take no more interest in conflicts between Iran and Israel than we do over arguments between Iceland and Canada over fishing rights.
The only possible argument for having our busybody ivy league foreign policy elites deeply involved in the middle east is the same as the unstated reason the Catholic Church had for the Crusades; better them wreaking havoc overseas than over here.
"Whiskey said...
Bottom line Steve, while I respect your insight into other matters (and Pat Buchanon for that matter)"
Right - you respect him - and yet you can't be bothered to spell his name correctly.
You're a lying jerkoff, Whiskey. And just why is it that a Hollywood hanger-on is such an expert in the economics of the oil industry? How cheap is your cheap oil, when it only comes at the cost of massive military involvement around the world and meddling in other people's affairs, which could someday end up in a nuclear attack on us? How cheap would that be?
Stick to talking about those things you know something about..........which would be nothing.
Dipshit.
"Anonymous said...
You and whiskey are completely disingenuous.......
9/27/13, 11:42 PM"
@ Anonymous of 9/27/13, 11:42 PM:
Well said. You are quite right.
Just like we no longer hear about how horrible Israel's border walls are-because they work.
The Berlin Wall worked, too.
You guys have no idea about how much Iran hates America,
A certain generation of Iranian "Baby Boomers" hate-hate-hate America. Wait for that generation to die out. Then peace, relative freedom, and normal relations become possible.
The USSR and Red China were like that too, with the older generations more ideological. The younger ones cared less about the Great Crusade Against Capitalism. Guess which ones won in the end?
Hey, Whiskey!
Howzabout we cut off all the foreign aid that directly or indirectly benefits Israel and spend it, instead, on building thorium power plants and Fischer Tropsch plants to turn our own indigenous coal into synfuels for vehicles?
Saudi Arabia is running dry. We need Caspian Sea crude. Time to become more friendly with Russia-Iran-Syria-et al. and see less of Israel and the Kingdom, both of which have inconvenienced and annoyed us in serious ways during the past 40 years.
Although we've had a spot of trouble from Russia and Iran (the Cold War, which was mostly phony, and the hostage crisis back in 1979), they had nothing to do with 9/11, for example.
Am I the only person who remembers the takeover of the American embassy in Iran in 1979? There was no justification for this takeover, and they have yet to apologize for this crime. To allowthese criminals to have nukes would be madness.
The United States gets very little of its oil from the middle east. It is a canard that America is heavily dependent on Mideast oil for its energy needs. But it is a canard zealously promoted by those interest groups that want America heavily focused on or involved in the Mideast.
P.S. To anonymous at 12:56 Pm. I know a girl (white Canadian)who went out with an Iranian guy for six years. She had never heard of or knew about the Iranian hostage drama. Unreal huh, but true.
Anon @ 1:48
It matters very little where Saudi oil goes, rather that they have the cheapest to extract oil and lots of it. Oil is fungible so the US, Europe, and China/Japan all need large amounts of oil, which they can get from anyone (shipping oil costs very little compared with the cost of getting it out of the ground/royalties paid to whoever owns the ground it's under. Thus Saudi Arabia is the crucial oil producer for all buyers (especially the largest buyers like the US). This will continue until Saudi Arabia goes into more severe decline, the interesting part is whether that will be soon or later.
the US and Western Europe intervention in the UN and through negotiations that kept Israel from suffering a more strategic defeat
LOL. Do tell.
Pretty weak argument. Just about the entire developed / First / Western world would qualify as an "enemy of Israel" in the sense of leaving it to fend for itself like a grown-up nation, rather than hover over it in financial/political protection as though it were a bratty helpless child nation.
Yet Israel isn't about to invade or otherwise fuck with any of our peer nations.
Why would I post comments on Jewish or neo-con blogs. I hardly agree with them on anything and I know they won't be convinced.
Well you post comments here, and you hardly seem to agree with us.
I have no doubt in my mind their support of Israel is emotional (for good reason) and likely nonnegotiable.
There should be little doubt in your mind that our support of America is emotional (for good reason)and nonnegotiable. That is why most of us on this blog and others like it are more concerned about our demographic crisis than we are about a small nation obtaining a nuke.
I am not asking you guys to back Israel (of whom I don't really have much of an opinion), but to stop letting your disdain for Israel lead you into supporting horrible outcomes like a nuclear Iran.
The biggest threat to America is NOT a nuclear Iran. The biggest threat to America is demographic.
We lived with a nuclear armed USSR that could have destroyed the Earth many times over. We are living with a nuclear armed China in which we have thrown open our markets and become financially dependent.
Yet you are trembling in your boots at the prospect of Iran having a nuke. Please show some of this concern over our impending demographic doom. For that is the real danger.
Putin doesn't give a crap about you paleocons. Nothing would make him more happy than your entire disposal income being consumed by your fuel budget.
How many times do people have to point out to you and whiskey that we don't care about Putin, Iran or the price of oil? If the United States becomes a third world country, it's all immaterial.
To us it's demographics, demographics, demographics.
To you and whiskey, it's all about Israel.
Never forget that:
1) It was the Western powers, chiefly Britain, that propped up the Iranian Shi'ite Clerical Fascist regime in the late 1970s.
2) They did it to keep the Commie cancer out of Iran. If the West couldn't have a regime friendly to them only (the Shah), then the next best thing would be one hostile to pretty much everyone (the Ayatollahs).
3) The militants who engineered the 1979 Hostage Crisis were extremists working entirely on their own. They had no support from the new revolutionary government, and the mullahs had no control over them. These crazies just got lucky.
4) The hostage crisis lasted so long because both Washington and Tehran had to work together to negotiate with the extremists.
"There's no way to spin it. Israeli troops in 2006 (and now) are pathetic. Israeli leaders know that. The US and Europe know that. The Arabs know that."
This post is precisely the reason why the United States spends more than the next 20 nations combined on defense and yet cannot defend its borders and is bankrupting itself.
The job of the Israeli military is not to defeat a dug in Hezbollah, is not to defeat a Syrian tank charge, is not to defeat PLO terrorism - it is to defend the borders of Israel and secure the existence of the citizens. That is what it does and has done well for the entire existence of the state. When it needed infantry, it trained infantry. When it needed tankers, it trained tank generals. When it needed pilots and computer hackers, that is what it got. When it needed a fence, it built one. True talent goes where it is needed. And right now, what is the situation between Israel and Lebanon after the Israeli "defeat"? Quiet border going on seven years - the quietest it has ever been in 65 years - and Hezbollah off the border and embroiled in a war in Lebanon. That is defeat?. If the US only had such defeats, we would have a few trillion dollars more in our pockets and perhaps our border would not be a sieve. That is victory in every way.
After 9/11 when our military and CIA and NSA and FAA totally failed, but no one was fired (everyone probably received a medal ) everyone said, as if it was an excuse: we were not expecting that! Our military defense and intelligence was designed to fight a another kind of attack - a conventional attack. Is that in the Constitution? - that the role of the US military is to defend the US army against a tank attack or have great infantry who can secure an Arab city? I missed that part. Their job is to defend the country, period but they did not understand that and apparently still don't. That is what the Israeli military does - however it needs to. But instead of doing that here, we get Mr. Hoorah thinking the Israelis don't have a good infantry force and the Arabs know it. What wussies.
If the Israelis don't have a good infantry force, it is because they don't need a good infantry force to defend the country, they need a good fence, a good airforce, computer hackers - whatever. They are getting stronger and more secure and we? Oh - we have the best infantry, whether we need them or not. By the way, just for the record, all respect to the soldiers, all respect to the fighting men; it is our leaders who spend more than the next 20 nations combined and yet are incapable of defending the US border, incapable of defending a US embassy, incapable of using our power in a way that advances US interests.
That post reminds me of people who say Rommel and the Afrika Corps - or the German army as a whole - they were the best, so much better than that plodder Montgomery and the 8th Army, Except for the fact they were destroyed and they lost the war.
"...let's tamper down the "great Jewish" warrior propaganda a bit."
Israel would have lost the 1973 war with Egypt and Syria if they hadn't been saved by the US or gone nuclear (they ran out of ammo across the board and were arming their nukes, either for action or to blackmail the US into action):
Operation Nickel Grass
It was a big deal. I recall an ROTC sarge getting a medal for his part in saving Israel the previous year. I also recall campus Jewish-leftists (and others) giving him the "braying baby killer" treatment that was popular on campus by the end of the Vietnam era. Ironic.
If the Israelis don't have a good infantry force, it is because they don't need a good infantry force to defend the country, they need a good fence, a good airforce, computer hackers - whatever. They are getting stronger and more secure and we? . . . . By the way, just for the record, all respect to the soldiers, all respect to the fighting men; it is our leaders who spend more than the next 20 nations combined and yet are incapable of defending the US border, incapable of defending a US embassy, incapable of using our power in a way that advances US interests.
To protect Israel from American incompetence, I would suggest that the US do the following: abstain every time a matter involving Israel (or its neighbors) comes before the UN Security Council; stop providing economic and military aid to Israel (and its neighbors); and withdraw all US military personnel and hardware from the region. This will allow Israeli Jews to live in peace with their Arab and Persian neighbors, free from the influence of evil, incompetent, White Americans.
Stalin trusting Hitler. Which was very, very stupid. Actually Stalin trusted Hitler not to be so stupid as to attack him before a British election forced out Churchill and allowed him a safe western border(c. 1944). With a safe western border he could have "knocked down the door" and the USSR would have collapsed like a house of cards.
>>If the Israelis don't have a good infantry force, it is because they don't need a good infantry force to defend the country, they need a good fence, a good airforce, computer hackers - whatever.<<
You raise several good points, and I certainly agree that the US could do no better than to look to Israeli political cohesion and adherence to the first principle of a Jewish state as a guide to the US's own borders and the ghastly view that the US is a propositional nation.
I think, however, that Lebanon 2006 destroyed a terribly important asset of the Israeli military: it shattered the illusion of the Israeli's unchallenged power to deter. Big ifs, but if Syria straightens out and if Iran reaches a critical point of achieving a nuclear bomb, whatever action Israel takes against Iran will have to take into consideration 50k Iranian directed missiles right on its borders and capable of raining down on Tel Aviv. Israel's inability to punish Hezbollah in 2006 for its bombing and killing of Israeli civilians will factor very heavily in whatever decision Israel takes. Too, as the US loses its ability, desire and political will to do and undertake whatever Israel bids, which undoubtedly will happen given current demographic and fiscal trends in the US, Israel's crappy ground forces will become that much more of a liability as Arabs press Israel for concessions. I think we can all agree that without the US's unqualified support, Israel faces existential threats.
In the end of course, Israel will still have its nuclear deterrence and I'd bet a lot that they're more than any country willing to use it, but Israel's pretty small and creating vast wastelands in its immediate neighborhood probably doesn't bode well for its long-term prospects.
On the Germans in WWII, the US's and Britain's own analysis and studies both during and after the war confirm without hesitation the vastly greater superiority of German troops compared to the allies' troops. No one was or is confused that the allies won because of sheer numbers and resources.
Anonydroid at 4:46 said: whisky (the one person that's right one person who isn't a pure isolationist bj artist for Russia)
Hunsdon said: I don't fool myself that I'm aces around here, but ordinarily I take pride in engaging with my interlocutors, engaging in debate, argument, or even invective at times.
But this takes the cake. Tell me, anonydroid, are you copying Whiskey's inability to spell Buchanan? Are you operating at some hipster, meta level?
Or maybe English isn't the mother tongue?
I think you're wish projecting. Every tactic Israel used was attacked in the media as being a gross human rights violation. It's like how under Bush, US troops who entered mosques were practically brought up on war crimes charges, while under Obama, no one gives a damn what our troops do. I dicn't hear the ACLU screaming about warrantless house searches in Boston after the bombing, did you? When push comes to shove, a nation like Israel will get the job done. If the Arabs are such good fighters, how come they never win? Have you ever talked to US vets about what Arab mutators are really like? They're essentially poorly led, poorly trained, cowardly illiterates.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Am I the only person who remembers the takeover of the American embassy in Iran in 1979? There was no justification for this takeover, and they have yet to apologize for this crime."
I remember it. I also remember that the US propped up the Shah and helped train SAVAK. I remember that we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. I also remember this:
Flight 655
Do you? Maybe the Iranians have some reason to hate us.
On the Germans in WWII, the US's and Britain's own analysis and studies both during and after the war confirm without hesitation the vastly greater superiority of German troops compared to the allies' troops.
How about the Turks in Gallipoli?
>>If the Arabs are such good fighters, how come they never win? Have you ever talked to US vets about what Arab mutators are really like? They're essentially poorly led, poorly trained, cowardly illiterates.<<
Which makes the IDF's performance against Hezbollah in 2006 that much more disconcerting. Nowhere did I say the Arab's were great fighters, but they took the IDF to school just a few years ago.
"OTOH, since Israel is our friend and ally, perhaps we can start adopting immigration policies similar to theirs."
Smart idea, but with their 300 Jews per square kilometer, it is too late. We will never catch up.
"Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Remember who said that? Who knows, maybe this post is a first salvo. Maybe it will finally propel Steve into history books as Sailer Doctrine. With global power shifting so fast and USA being on the loosing end, it will get back to that pragmatic posture faster than anybody can say immigration reform. Or affirmative action.
"Which makes the IDF's performance against Hezbollah in 2006 that much more disconcerting."
No matter how anyone slices it, Hezbollah stopped the Israeli invincibility myth cold, if you pay attention to things military.
Much of Israel's myth-of-prowess comes from fighting men who often really were illiterate sheep herders. Hezbollah trained their fighters extensively, over long periods. Hezbollah used tactics that had been developed in Lebanon over decades of fighting Israeli forces.
Another thing that has contributed to Israel's military superiority in the region is that many of it's adversaries are not coherent nation states. Look at Syria. Not only do Israel's enemies often have internal conflicts, they fight each other. Remember when Egypt used chemical weapons--repeatedly over a few years--in its war in Yemen? (The long war in Yemen has been called "Egypt's Vietnam", it probably contributed significantly to Egypt's defeat by Israel in the Six day war in 1967.)
In its first war after WWII Israel was fighting nations and armies that had been under colonial occupation a year or so earlier. Many of those armies existed mostly on paper. Even so, Israel would have lost if it hadn't been saved by an inflow of Czechoslovakian arms.
Hahah correcting spelling is like the most impotent possible response. Try confronting the point next time Hundson. I guess I'm just a WASP who doesn't have the time to learn how to spell every single of the fifteen permutations the Irish have for their last names.
The point is Mr. Anon, and it is a very simple point that apparently you don't get, you don't let people that hate you obtain possession of powerful weapons if you can help it. Speaking of which there are a lot of reasons the USA should hate Russia but one glance at Putin's bare chest and the paleos say everything is forgiven. If you are going to play the blame America first game then you can't complain about our confrontational policy towards Russia. It is let us just say convient that all the super WASPs here just love Russia something real WASPs have never showed a particular predisposition towards. The WASPs I'm related to which is to save effectively everyone in my family tree also aren't huge fans of grown, balding men taking their shirts off for no reason. But maybe that's just the Puritanism. It does kind of makes you think that maybe the mix with this crowd might be less WASP and more Baltic and Russian. That maybe a lot of the posters here are descended from people who were greeted by a Emma Lazurus poem as they arrived here.
>> IHTG said...
A UK defense company guy explained to me recently: basically by US anti-Israel-sanctions law, in any multinational company's procurement contract they **have to** include stuff purchased from Israel in the deal, or they can be accused of having sanctions vs Israel and sued in US courts. So Isaeli tech is ubiquitous because multinationals *have to* buy it. So whenever his company develops a weapon system to sell to the UK govt they *have to* include parts bought from Israel.
That sounds preposterous. Got any verifiable source?<<
No, it's just something the guy told me - and he's been wrong about other stuff before. But he does work for a defense contractor, AIR it's these guys - http://www.baesystems.com/home - and apparently people there do believe this, whether it's true or not!
anon:
"Most defense products do not have any Israeli technology in them at all. Israeli tech is not ubiquitous - it is simply very competitive. The UK defense industries are also competitive and I am sure they do not like having one more player in the game; like every business, they would rather have the field alone. If this is the excuse this person is using as to why Israeli technology proliferates, at the expense of the English, it is one of the worst ones I have ever heard. "
He was saying that his company (BAE I think) made sure to put bits of Israeli tech in all their *own* systems, in order to keep the Americans sweet. Maybe they're only worried about losing out on US defense contracts if they're accused of not buying enough Israeli stuff, not of actually being sued for non-sanctions-busting. He's not the most reliable narrator so that wouldn't surprise me.
>>On the Germans in WWII, the US's and Britain's own analysis and studies both during and after the war confirm without hesitation the vastly greater superiority of German troops compared to the allies' troops. No one was or is confused that the allies won because of sheer numbers and resources.<<
Pretty sure that the studies found a consistent 10% superiority in German troop quality. Significant but not vast in itself. Of course the Germans also often had superior equipment, and sometimes had superior leadership too, especially earlier in the war. All told it could give them around a 2-1 superiority over an allied force, ie one German division worth two allied divisions.
“the imbecilic Paul Bremer decided to dismantle their army, rather than de-Baath it and send it back out to maintain order.
Alas, it seems learning from history is verboten these days”
Right, Hitler and Stalin must have been spinning in their graves. To send Iranian soldiers home was probably counterproductive, but only in hindsight. The really stupid double whammy was allowing people keep arms and forbidding censorship. I wonder if it wasn´t meant the other way around and twisted along the chain of command. Another stupidity was let low class women guard the prisoners. I bet that real atrocities were perpetrated by Iranian compatriots (there must have been zillions of overqualified locals), but the stupid lesbian pranks instantly guardianized media around the world. As a result, the brilliant military action designed to ave Syria and Iran actually made them cockier. And if US was so keen on fucking up, the kick off salvo of the war should be accidentally aimed at that Sadr guy. Accidents happen.
“So Obama can make his base happy and get oil to say, $200 a barrel which is where Putin and Iran want it?
And what does the average White Middle Class American get out of this wonderful deal? Private cars no longer affordable. Because you can't fill them up.”… And no, fracking won't change anything
Really? 200 a barrel would do all that? That´s approximately 6 bucks per gallon at the pump. We pay 7 in Europe and what it does is provide for great public transportation. Since oil is global commodity, premium consist of gas tax. Europeans basically look at cars as invention of IRS. If that apocalyptic vision is really embedded in US psyche, everybody should happily pay the fraction of that difference to uncle Sam. I bet it would scare the crap off of the big portion of American enemies and make happy even bigger chunk of US true friends by deep sixing global oil prices. But given countless missed opportunities for this simple measure and ever growing populism of politicians of all stripes, it would take Harry Potter to pull it out.
That post reminds me of people who say Rommel and the Afrika Corps - or the German army as a whole - they were the best, so much better than that plodder Montgomery and the 8th Army, Except for the fact they were destroyed and they lost the war.
People usually mean "pound for pound best" when they say "best." Not "biggest." By that metric, as anon mentioned, even the Allies admitted (after the war was over, and largely in private) that Germans had better soldiers and a better force.
It's not hard to have a bigger, crappier army and win a war, happens all the time. The north got their asses handed to them in terms of casualty ratios and won the war of northern aggression, for example.
Then why hasn't Hezbollah tried again, if they had such a great victory? Arab reticence to push an advantage?
He was saying that his company (BAE I think) made sure to put bits of Israeli tech in all their *own* systems, in order to keep the Americans sweet. Maybe they're only worried about losing out on US defense contracts if they're accused of not buying enough Israeli stuff, not of actually being sued for non-sanctions-busting. He's not the most reliable narrator so that wouldn't surprise me.
Admittedly this is not the same thing, but does exemplify preferences shown to Israel. The Israelis will be the first non-US nation to fly the F-35 JSF even though they are way down the totem pole when it comes to participants. The US obviously ponied up the major funds for development. But the UK was the sole level 1 contributor and there were levels 2 and 3 based upon how much a nation ponied up for development. For example, Canada ponied up over $400 million to be a level 3 partner.
Meanwhile Israel gave $20 million to be security and cooperation participant. Yet they will receive their jets, courtesy of US taxpayers of course, before the other nations who put up more money.
Additionally Israel will get to participate in the manufacturing of the plane and some of her companies have secured about $4 billion in contracts to supply Lockheed Martin. This has upset some of the other partners who had skin in the game.
So I don't know if what Simon in London wrote is or is not true. But it does sound plausible.
>> And while the Iranians will never be our best buds, there isn't any reason to go out of our way to antagonize them.
It wasn't Yishuv-Jews who destroyed Hitler's Berlin.
It was the Stalin he had jumped into bed with.
>> Then why hasn't Hezbollah tried again
Because their Iranian sponsors/paymasters ordered all their best fighters into Syria to help prop up Assad.
>>> no one should fear Israel on the battlefield
You are invited to join the other Internalistas in the Ramallah coffee shops.
Our Border Police and our Kfir Brigade are our redneck-y guys who like to stomp on the likes of you.
No problem. You can get buried next to Rachel Corrie.
>> The Israelis will be the first non-US nation to fly the F-35 JSF even though they are way down the totem pole when it comes to participants
you can spend all the money you want on simulations at White Sand Missle Range (been there, great food, excellent single-wide-trailer whorehouses in Socorro!)
.... but if you want to BATTLE TEST your new system, give them to us.
Who else is gonna do it.... your Norwegian allies?!?
>> they [Israel] ran out of ammo across the board
Yep. And England would be German-speaking today (well, Turkish speaking, I guess) if America hadn't re-armed and fed it.
You don't even want to know how many US Merchant Mariners died at the hands of U-Boat captains to prop up the Brits. It was not a pretty picture. Convoys were invented for a reason.
"You don't even want to know how many US Merchant Mariners died at the hands of U-Boat captains to prop up the Brits. It was not a pretty picture."
What's so esoteric about this? It's all online these days:
http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html
"About 8,300 mariners were killed at sea, 12,000 wounded of whom at least 1,100 died from their wounds, and 663 men and women were taken prisoner. (Total killed estimated 9,300.)"
This is total US Merchant Marine casualties, not just in the Battle of the Atlantic, which probably accounted for about 75% of the US Merchant Marine losses. In the Battle of the Atlantic, 36,000 Allied merchant seaman died,the majority probably British.
"So I don't know if what Simon in London wrote is or is not true. But it does sound plausible."
No it is completely not plausible and absurd. No one puts Israeli technology in a plane because they will get sued if they don't or their contracts will be invalidated because it violates a sanctions or a FAR or a DFAR clause. There are no such lawsuits, no such FAR or DFAR clauses, no such legislation. This is made up whole. The suits, the threats of suit, and the clauses don't exist.
Or why don't I say now? : the Pentagon buys British because certain members of the royal family own the major defense contractors in the US. The royals, along with Churchill pushed us into WW2 so as to save enrich themselves. There - said it - unprovable, unsupportable but Churchill did push us into WW2, so I guess it "sounds plausible".
On the other hand - in the real world - not the bizarre "Simon" one - BAE, as I noted, has been accused of bribing the Saudis to get large contracts. And they have received very large Saudi contracts. Saudi standard contracts forbid Israeli manufactured parts in their systems.
but if you want to BATTLE TEST your new system, give them to us.
No, I don't wish to "give" you anything. Nor do I wish to have you function as a conduit to pass it off to China. The US has been bogged down in enough action this past decade to do our own testing.
"Anonymous said...
Hahah correcting spelling is like the most impotent possible response."
Typing out "Hahah", using the word "like", and not using proper punctuation is the mark of a juvenile nitwit.
Whiskey repeatedly and willfully mispells the the name of a man who is a public figure, despite having been called out on it numerous times - which indicates either a.) his contempt for Mr. Buchanan, or b.) that he never reads anyone else's posts, despite the fact that he regularly excretes his posts here. He is a jerkoff.
"The point is Mr. Anon, and it is a very simple point that apparently you don't get, you don't let people that hate you obtain possession of powerful weapons if you can help it."
I don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon. It is no danger to us. They will use it for the same purpose that every that Russia and the US used them for - deterrence. I don't care if the Iranians hate us. We don't need to be loved by everyone.
"Speaking of which there are a lot of reasons the USA should hate Russia but one glance at Putin's bare chest and the paleos say everything is forgiven. If you are going to play the blame America first game then you can't complain about our confrontational policy towards Russia. It is let us just say convient that all the super WASPs here just love Russia something real WASPs have never showed a particular predisposition towards."
I don't like Putin, and I don't trust Russia. Again, I neither need to trust or like them to recognize that - none-the-less - they have legitimate interests of their own.
By the way - way to project with all that stuff about Putin's man-teats. Creepy.
And, Anonymous, given that you don't much care about spelling, I'll just spell "Anonymous" as "A**hole".
I'd rather be a juvenile nitwit than impotent. After all I can always grow up, but you can't get it up.
If its all the same to you I'm going to guess you really don't have all that much of an idea of why Iran needs/ wants nuclear missiles. Keep in mind the same paleos who claim Iran just wants nuclear missiles for deterrence nonetheless seem to think the nuclear defense shield is somehow an aggressive weapon. Now I don't want to say its only because they are wink wink Orthodox but let's face for Larison Rome's moved twice so to speak.
No one said Russia isn't allowed to have interest. It's just tawdry when so many paleocons put Russia's interest over ours. Especially when 20 years ago they couldn't fight the Russkies enough.
No it is completely not plausible and absurd. No one puts Israeli technology in a plane because they will get sued if they don't or their contracts will be invalidated because it violates a sanctions or a FAR or a DFAR clause. There are no such lawsuits, no such FAR or DFAR clauses, no such legislation. This is made up whole. The suits, the threats of suit, and the clauses don't exist.
The US does prohibit companies from not doing business with Israel if that is a condition to do business with Arab or Muslim nations. From the Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC):
The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain other countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.
If its all the same to you I'm going to guess you really don't have all that much of an idea of why Iran needs/ wants nuclear missiles. Keep in mind the same paleos who claim Iran just wants nuclear missiles for deterrence nonetheless seem to think the nuclear defense shield is somehow an aggressive weapon. Now I don't want to say its only because they are wink wink Orthodox but let's face for Larison Rome's moved twice so to speak.
I guess Iran wants a deterrent because in recent history they've had a foreign power conduct a coup, been invaded, and had the nations on their border invaded and occupied by an unfriendly power. I am sure there are other reasons.
And yes a weapon system that nullifies someone else's nuclear deterrent is offensive and creates the risk of an unnecessary escalation.
No one said Russia isn't allowed to have interest. It's just tawdry when so many paleocons put Russia's interest over ours. Especially when 20 years ago they couldn't fight the Russkies enough.
That's rich coming from a guy who puts Israel's interests above ours. I don't see any paleos putting Russia's interests above ours. It is just that paleos, unlike neocons, seem to be able to think more than one move ahead.
The argument against the so called missile shield in Poland is that you are unnecessarily provoking the Russians. By nullifying their nuclear shield, you are forcing them to react.
While we are on Russia, paleos are also against extending NATO membership to Georgia and other satellites for the same reason. Why provoke Russia when you don't need to? Had we followed the neocon route, we'd have gone to war with Russia in 2008 over some shitty piece of real estate called South Ossetia.
By following the neocon's advice we turned Iraq into an Iranian ally and displaced a couple million Iraqi Christians.
As far as hating the Russians, you do recall that they were the standard bearer for worldwide communism? Of course neocons have a special little place in their hearts for communists. That probably explains why neocons, not paleos, are so supportive of free trade with the Chicoms and don't seem to be the least bit worried that we are so dependent upon them.
""You don't even want to know how many US Merchant Mariners died at the hands of U-Boat captains to prop up the Brits."
I imagine there's a good chance you really don't see any difference between defending the country from which the language we speak and the cultural and legal systems we inherited come and defending Israel.
Post a Comment