Bolton's breakdown on Israeli strikes--a green light subtly lit
Saturday, June 20, 2009 at 3:15AM OPINION: "What If Israel Strikes Iran?" by John R. Bolton, Wall Street Journal, 11 June 2009.
The gist appears in the call-out text: "The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb."
Iran won't close the Straits of Hormuz, nor cut its own exports to raise global prices, nor directly attacks U.S. forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan, nor launch missiles against Israel. It will unleash Hamas and Hezbollah and that's about it.
Then Bolton tries to sell with contrary logic: "This brief survey demonstrates why Israel's military option against Iran's nuclear program is so unattractive, but also why failing to act is even worse."
The deuce you say.
Plus, Israel's strikes might just turn the population against the regime.
This is sounding better and better.
Plus, says Bolton, most Arab regimes will welcome the strikes.
Finally, Bolton reminds us, Obama has turned against Israel, so what the hell?
Actually, a pretty accurate op-ed.
Reader Comments (18)
Higher oil price.Strengthen grip of Nationlists (Bolton's got that wrong..The regime will fall for other reasons but a strike will give it Red Bull+ legs )Break away from the NPT ( or just not bother to work with them....and gain deterence through opaquness rather than a real nuke )Once the stick is wielded...then the cupboard is bare ( like 0% interest rates )....no more stick for ever more.Hezbollah will not retaliate and Iran just reaps the soft and hard benefits.
Israel is chasing it own idealogical tail with its own nose.If Iran plays the attack properly and with some skill....there is definetely going to be a clearcut winner in all this.
If you were Obama, how would you do that?
Obama wants the previous accords to count.
Disagreeing is as good as being the enemy ( anti-semitism charge can't be too far away one day if this continues.. .)
Please Hugh, what does that mean? Get specific. What actions does Obama take to kick this house of cards over? And what is this courage you say he lacks? Something you process?
Hugh: If you want the current Iranian regime to fall, the last thing you want is American involvement in any form. Nothing will cause the Iranians to close ranks around the mullahs faster. Obama is doing exactly the right thing to push the regime over the edge.
"2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices. An Iranian embargo of its own oil exports would complete the ruin of Iran's domestic economy by depriving the country of hard currency."
Those are two entirely different scenarios. Predictably, Bolton goes after the straw man. Mr. Bolton, a cut is not an embargo. If anything, Iran could well end up with a higher revenue stream, both for oil it ships today, and for its reserves over time.
This, by the way, is the problem I have with the Peak Oil crowd. Because cutting production is exactly what one would expect if the OPEC producers wanted to maximize revenue. Instead, they keep acting like demand will evaporate at any moment unless they keep the taps wide open, and prices as low as possible. We keep acting like the embargo of 1973 was the defining moment; OPEC keeps acting like the glut of 1980s was the defining moment.
"1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz.... The U.S. would quickly overwhelm any effort to close the Strait..."
Translation: Since the Iraqis paid no attention to Paul Van Riper and Millennium Challenge 2002, it's inconceivable the Iranians paid any attention, either.
That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Iran can't cut its exports because it cannot afford the loss of income.
As for the Straits, there is the nonsense of Iran picking that fight in the first place, then the nonsense of them actually pulling it off.
After all that, if you want to add the legend of Millennium Challenge, where Van Riper beat the game but proved nothing beyond his cleverness at cheating the Kobyashi Maru, be my guest.
No, they've merely recognized the accords are defunct. Not only is the original "Palestinian Authority" with whom they signed no longer in existence, the accords have been massively violated by the Palestinians. They never rejected nor stopped armed attacks and terrorism against the Israelis, or accepted the right of Israel to exist. Despite this, the Israelis went so far as to completely withdraw from Gaza and invest the Palestinians with de facto sovereignty in the hopes that doing so would lead to peace. Instead we've seen the creation of an even more violent "Hamas-istan" which has become an Iranian proxy, has created a nihilistic death cult of its society and has launched thousands of rocket attacks against Israel.
Frankly, I'm still surprised the Israelis exercise the restraint the do. No useful peace plan can be predicated upon the assumption that the Olso Accords are still valid or in force.
1.) Why are we so sure that the "Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem?" Is it the Arab vs. Pursian dynamic?
2.)Although this is after the fact, but election has already caused "Iran's diverse population to push back against it's oppressive regime", so why wouldn't an Israeli strike bring Iran back together?
The Bolton summarization argues we can have it both ways. Which is hard to swallow.
Gaza and Lebanese bombings ...ummm.Isrealis queitly admit that doing a crazy man act by over reacting , as they did recently , is the new deterrent.It works as well.I don't see Hezbollah reacting to an Israel strike against Iran and that will be the reason...a willingness and history of showing no restraint.
Oslo itself was so open ended and vague as to be meaningless as a legal document.It was more about intent ...and its from there that we are seeing a drawback from the Israelis.
Obama would do well to continue reiterating his opening to the muslim world; we are not your enemies... the things that you are fighting for in Iran are the same values that we cherish.
That and as Tom has stated, to roll Iran back at the edges, starting with Syria by showing them that Iran is not such a strong ally, nor is it as great a threat to its stability.
Net with a renewed push for a two state solution. I agree that Netanyahu's offer was DOA, but it was also one that Palestenians were more than happy to rejct outright. They have done so with better proposals in the past.
They have done so with ALL proposals in the past, and will continue to do so.
And when offered more, they take it and continue to reject any peaceful proposals from any arbiter. As long as the Arab and Islamic World are using Palestine and Gaza as the burr under the saddle for Mid East Peace, the Palestinians don't have to sit down with Israel . .
Were they to settle for peace with Israel under any terms, they would no longer be a welfare state to the rest of the world.
Here's a (nearly) contemporaneous account of Millennium Challenge 2002 from Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-292925-1060102.php
That's well before any "legend" could set in. I don't see anything in that account that could be construed as something Van Riper did and no "real world" adversary could. If your point is that any group that works by rule sets can be gamed -- and military doctrine is a rule set, no doubt -- then you're right.
But if Van Riper pulled a Kobayashi, then so did Aidid in Somalia (I'd argue, in fact, that Van Riper's play in MC02 was as if he was asking himself, "What would Aidid do?"). So will future adversaries, sooner or later. They won't all be as cooperative as Saddam and play out the scenario according to the script.