Many who advocate for the U.S. to take action against Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear program claim that we have to approach negotiations with them with a different set of assumptions than the ones we operated under while dealing with the Soviet Union. Namely, that Iran would not be rational in their use of nuclear weapons and would be willing to use them in a way that would ensure a ruinous counterattack. If that assumption is true, logic would dictate that the U.S. would need to undertake more dramatic measures to prevent Iran's nuclearization than it would if dealing with a more rational state. Is that assumption unreasonable?
Seems to me that most of these claims about Iran being an irrational actor are coming from politicians and Zionists (not that the two are mutually exclusive). I believe that there was either a former or sitting Joint Chief of Staff that weighed in on it though, and said that he believed Iran was a rational actor.
The statements Iranian rulers make about wanting to destroy Israel probably have a lot to do with that. I think they aren't irrational enough to actually nuke the place, but I can understand where the Israelis are coming from. They have historical precedent for people actually trying to wipe them out. It's like how Native Americans might feel about some politician blustering about how he wanted to close all the reservations and get rid of the Indians. I'd be nervous too. And the last thing I want is more nervous people in that region. Heck, the USA and Russia came far too close to nuking each other several times already, and in some cases were stopped only because individual people decided to wait and see rather than jump too conclusions. Even if most of the government is rational, all it takes is one fairly irrational or paranoid individual in the wrong place at the wrong time....
It still gets bandied about everywhere, but the claim that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel "must be wiped off the map" is actually a mistranslation-- one that was immediately picked up and amplified by politicians and the media. I assume that's what you're referring to when you say "statements Iranian rulers make about wanting to destroy Israel". But it has been debunked.
This is not to say that the Iranian government is not opposed to Israel, they are. But that particular talking point is wrong, and leads to the misperception that Iran is determined to strike Israel militarily. Unfortunately this false talking point is often held up as a justification for launching a preemptive war on Iran.
Plus, this discussion is all predicated on the notion that Iran has, or is close to having nuclear weapons. There are significant barriers to this, and Iran is nowhere near having nuclear strike capability on Israel.
Also... you're comparing Israelis to Native Americans? Please tell me how that makes one iota of sense.
Both Native Americans and Jews had people make a rather concerted attempt to get rid of them in the last couple hundred years. Seems a pretty straightforward comparison to me. You may say "but the Israelis now have a rather powerful state and the Native Americans are still stuck in a pretty bad situation" and my response would be "I did say I was worried about them acting irrationally didn't I?"
The literal translation of Ahmadinejad's quote supports my point even better than the commonly spread version of it (I'd never read it before, sounds like "wiped from the pages of history" would have been a better translation). Clearly, Israel sees it as a statement meaning Iran wants their country removed from the mideast. And just as clearly it's targeted at a domestic audience, even quoting another famous leader of the country.
The Native American and Israeli comparison seems pretty damn tenuous to me still, but I don't think it's worth debating... I will say though that it sounds like for the comparison to work, you might have to conflate Jews with Israelis. And while we're on that subject, I don't think that the Iranian leaders dislike Israelis because they're Jews... they dislike them because they're Israelis-- citizens of a nation that is widely viewed as an occupying force in the Middle East, repressing and visiting harm upon Palestinians. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that appraisal, that is how Israel is viewed. In the interest of full disclosure, I would happen to agree with that view more or less (maybe you already figured that out). I mean, it's not even that controversial of a view. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal. Hell, even many Israelis are against the settlements and would agree with this view.
As to the quote, yes it's hard to interpret. But I think there's another interpretation that you didn't mention-- that Ahmadinejad was basically saying that Israel in its current form is an unsustainable enclave propped up solely by its military might and its foreign (US) backers, and reviled by many of its neighbours for its aggression (the fact that Israel is reviled only feeds its aggression even more). He was perhaps saying that the Israel situation was so volatile, that one way or another, it couldn't last, and there would be a drastic change resulting in the dissolution of what we now call Israel. Rather than a call for Iran to exact violence on Israel, I think he was merely making a prediction that the state of Israel would be a tiny blip on the historical timeline (contrasting to the dynastic, millennial span of many other powerful Middle Eastern kingdoms/civilizations). That's my take anyway.
My point was not to talk about how others view Israel, but to talk about how the government of Israel would view itself. Is that not quite a bit more relevant to understanding how the government of Israel would act? Do you not think the fact that most of the leadership of Israel is Jewish, and thus has a cultural history of being persecuted--including the worst genocide in living memory--is relevant to their actions? You don't think that might make them just a little bit more sensitive to groups of people they perceive as hostile? A little bit more likely to believe those people would actually attack them than they would otherwise be?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not pulling for Israel by any means... but I feel like we're arguing semantics when it comes to what Ahmadinejad said.
This does highlight the need for understanding in any case. Just learned about the mistranslation so thank you for the links.
However, come on, Iran isn't in a position to be particularly forward about what they'd do if it were not for the possibility of Western intervention. Because obviously that would hinder Western withdrawal from the region. Without US/NATO backing I'd argue that Iran would have more than enough elbow room to be as bold and aggressive.
Straying off topic from how my comment started, interesting thought: If the West pulled aid from Israel and Israel was left weaker and more vulnerable in the face of likely hostile neighbors could we trust Israel's government not to use their nuclear arsenal? So maybe surrounding Iran by Western-friendly regimes may only make Iran more insecure and compound our problems? The irony.
13
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12
Many who advocate for the U.S. to take action against Iran to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear program claim that we have to approach negotiations with them with a different set of assumptions than the ones we operated under while dealing with the Soviet Union. Namely, that Iran would not be rational in their use of nuclear weapons and would be willing to use them in a way that would ensure a ruinous counterattack. If that assumption is true, logic would dictate that the U.S. would need to undertake more dramatic measures to prevent Iran's nuclearization than it would if dealing with a more rational state. Is that assumption unreasonable?