« Assorted links | Main | Should donors give to students rather than schools? »
Why might Israel attack Iran
According to this line of thinking, which has adherents...focusing on the tactical questions surrounding such an operation -- how much of Iran's nuclear program can Israel destroy? how many years can a bombing campaign set the program back? -- is a mistake. The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis...any attack on Iran's reactors -- as long as it is not perceived as a military failure -- can serve as a means of "stirring the pot" of international geopolitics. Israel, in other words, wouldn't be resorting to military action because it is convinced that diplomacy by the international community cannot stop Iran; it would be resorting to military action because only diplomacy by the international community can stop Iran.
That is Shmuel Rosner in the 30 July The New Republic. Personally I do not think that Israel will attack Iran, but since I had never heard this argument before I thought I would pass it on.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 15, 2008 at 08:48 PM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I think that I prefer Schelling's wisdom: the US and its allies are going to have to get used to being deterred by a country that doesn't like us - Iran.
Posted by: michael webster at Jul 15, 2008 8:53:37 PM
Interesting indeed. I also don't expect an Israeli strike, but hey who knows.
I wonder what route Israeli warplanes could take for such a bombing mission. That's a long way to go, with a lot of hostile airspace (Syria, Turkey or Saudi Arabia) or a huge nudge and wink (Iraq).
Posted by: Mercutio.Mont at Jul 15, 2008 8:54:21 PM
My bartender barred a guy for pissing off a regular who never bothers anyone. It's the same principle.
Posted by: Joe at Jul 15, 2008 8:58:18 PM
An earthquake would suffice to stop Iran program. Am Iran is a hogh risk zone.
Israel did it against Iraq and will do it against Iran. Nobody have to stand to be deterred by a clown.
Usa dislike Iran?
Basra reactor. IRAN- contras. Gulf war and the taliban.The USA sold israeli arms to Iran and eliminated every enemy of Iran. Certainly the have reasons to hate the USA.
Posted by: karl at Jul 15, 2008 9:56:57 PM
With all due respect, this sounds like one of those Internet jokes that go something like:
1. Bomb Iran
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
What is the "Step 2" that will magically turn a hornets' nest into a negotiated diplomatic solution?
Posted by: at Jul 15, 2008 10:15:37 PM
Joe, what are you talking about? it's not even close to the same principle.
Maybe it's more like the time your bartender picked a fight with some jerk and the police came and threw them both in jail, but the joke was on the jerk, because the chief of police was the bartender's brother so he got off free?
Posted by: weichi at Jul 16, 2008 12:15:34 AM
let me see if I can understand this. You've got this dispute with a neighbor, and you can't resolve it on your own. You've got a bunch of friends that are more-or-less on your side, and they're trying to resolve the dispute, but they don't think it's as big a deal as you do. So you need to convince them to do more to help.
How is firebombing your neighbors house going to accomplish this? Is the problem here really that your friends don't realize how important this is to you? And isn't there a possibility that your friends are going to decide that *you* are the problem, and maybe they shouldn't be friends with you anymore? Especially since the smoke from the fire is probably going to ruin the block party they have planned.
Posted by: weichi at Jul 16, 2008 12:40:37 AM
Eventually, all these people will get the bomb. Can we push them back 5 or 10 years? Who cares. The real question is, when they do get the means, will they hate us, or will they hate us AND be motivated to do something about it. If they wanted to commit suicide, why haven't they done it already? No state would attack us pre-emptively. We still hold MAD capability against states. Why would they give a bomb to a rogue group?
I'm in graduate school. I'm well versed in how everyone can hate you and you still get along.
As for likelihood of an Israeli attack, this whole "nothing off the table" nonsense has been floated for going on a year or more, and noone has stood up to take it off the table. So, I figure the pols think that's a green light. Which means we are hinging on the sanity and rationality of The Decider. Uhhh...
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 16, 2008 12:48:50 AM
As for the airspace, Israel has perhaps the best air force in the air, bar NONE. I don't see why they would really care about anything on the ground that they don't want destroyed. If they want to get 'r done, I assume they'd beg forgiveness for flyovers. Riling up the neighbors would only play into the proposed "stir the pot" strategy.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 16, 2008 12:57:20 AM
So is this just brinkmanship? Isreal is saying there's gonna be a fight like it or not which forces America and friends into action, and hoping China and Russia will back down and instead force Iran into line.
How good can game theory get at solving problems like this? I'd say any solution should include a 20ish% chance that all your utility results for opposing parties have been totally miscalculated and you'll get a random result. Overcoming bias?
Posted by: MM at Jul 16, 2008 2:50:02 AM
You have to look at it from the perspective of Marty Peretz and his boys at The New Republic:
If Israel nukes Iran, one of two things will happen:
1. The entire world would then step in and disarm Iran.
or
2. Not.
But, in either case, Israel gets to nuke Irans, killing lots of Muslims. So, from Marty Peretz's point of view, what's not to like?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 16, 2008 4:30:33 AM
I think there's a reason why you've never heard this argument before, Tyler. Bombing another country in order to get the international community on your side? What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: Blar at Jul 16, 2008 5:18:27 AM
Remember, the whole MAD is not good enough hinges on the Iranians being "crazy", and thus MAD proof...or basically suicidal...This argument has been sold hard here in the U.S. to get the public onboard this game of brinksmanship. The game escalates on cue, despite the weaknesses obviated by the Iranian political system, comprised of, an under powered president, and over powered deeply religious theocratic leadership. Itself comprised of a diffuse decision making structure.....all of which point to vey effective MAD deterrence qualities.
As to the international community, I can’t find anyone who buys into the Iranians are crazy argument. What I here is that the emperor and his favorite mistress can’t stand not having an free hand in the area, and the restriction’s that will come about in a MAD environment is worth the brinksmanship, particularly since the MAD is local. For now, everyone's just playing along to the emperor’s favorite mistresses’ neurosis. But when push comes to shove, the nobles are going to tell the mistress to just live with it. As the first commenter pointed out, this horse left the barn the day the Israeli’s acquired their considerable stock pile of adult toys, and the second Act is just running itself out to script.
The really big question is the second half of the play. The role the Iraq adventure and the pandering to Israeli tantrums, is having on the emperor's credibility. The gathering storm is ushering in the moment the world places a firm hand on the steering wheel and insists it's time for America to slide over to the passenger seat. Up to now, what had been a good bit of driving skill post WWII has become a scary ride, and with both, nuke-play and $500 oil, no longer a tiny probability event, it's become evident that Israeli neurosis is threatening everybody’s peace of mind.
Of course it's hard for the kids to grab the wheel just because Pa's swerving the car all over the road, hollering out the window at those Muslim bikers scratching the car, but the kids are full grown now, and ma's been itching for a divorce for a while, and all the older kids in the car reckon they can drive better.
Posted by: nyongesa at Jul 16, 2008 6:13:45 AM
That was really good, but you mixed like 8 different metaphors.
Posted by: josh at Jul 16, 2008 9:22:27 AM
the game theory answer is simple: (Israel|Iran|US|North Korea) wants somewhat crazy rationales like this to circulate, because (Israel|Iran|US|North Korea) can achieve influence by appearing to be unpredictable.
I agree with Tyler and with Stratfor, which has been saying for weeks that the escalation in rhetoric is a sign we are closer to negotiation and further from military action. Note the Israeli strike against Syria was not preceded by any leaks, rhetoric, or pundits talking about what a great idea it would be.
Posted by: DK at Jul 16, 2008 10:31:27 AM
I usually play the neutral card when people ask my opinion of Prez Bush because I'm sure I've only ever seen or heard about .25% of all the information he gets to base his decisions on. I don't deserve to judge him.
But if nyongesa's metaphor is accurate, why hasn't anyone with any actual power talked Pa out of driving like a maniac? Everyone blames Bush for his terrible presidency, but there are loads of people (I'm looking at you Congress) who could've stepped in helped make a better decision. Or did everyone in his cabinet really think all of the decisions made by the President in the past 8 years were legitimate?
Posted by: Brian at Jul 16, 2008 10:38:35 AM
My apologies for going a little off topic.
Posted by: Brian at Jul 16, 2008 10:39:22 AM
Curious how the idea of a pre-emptive strike against the bad guys - in effect an act of war - is seen as justified and morally acceptable ...because ... wait for it .... they are dangerous people who might engage in arbitrary violence. The irony of it.
Posted by: rjw at Jul 16, 2008 10:46:51 AM
Actually, there is one way this preemptive attack idea works, if you have the goods on the other guy.
Let's say Israel has its own private incontrovertible evidence on Iran's nuclear program.
Israel has 2 choices:
1. Israel gives up their evidence to the offical body of hemming and hawing, pats itself on the back for "following the process," and awaits annihilation.
2. Israel takes a big fat punch at Iran, and when everybody's saying "Why the Hell'd you do that?" Israel presents their evidence, says "THIS is why!" And everybody says "Oh."
However, I tend to agree with the poster that the rhetoric may be a signal of diplomacy and hardball negotiation. Certainly the element of surprise is lost.
Posted by: Keith at Jul 16, 2008 11:10:31 AM
Just suppose that israel uses the warplanes the USA gave them, and the bunker-busting munitions the USA gave them, and they fly over iraq and the USA doesn't do anything to stop them, and they bomb iran.
And suppose then that the USA says they were justified and vetoes any attempt to do anything about it.
Does anything happen to israel? Maybe a bunch of european governments snubs them for awhile, but so what? Maybe european public opinion of israel goes down, but so what? The EU won't do economic sanctions. They won't do anything but talk.
The only losers are iran and the USA. Israel reveals lots of our ECM and other secrets, the russians etc get to watch just how their planes got by the special russian defenses they sold iran, and next time it will be harder to do. Chances are it will be US planes next time. USA looks bad to everywhere in the world that cares about such things, except USA and israel. We can hope though that after Bush is gone everybody will forgive us, we can say it was just Bush and we couldn't do anything about him.
Nobody in the world can do anything about it, except maybe start a trade war or something. Muslim nations could agree not to sell oil to us, but oil is fungible -- we can buy nonmuslim oil and let everybody else buy the muslim oil, and all it costs us is some money.
The consequences are all long-run consequences, things that somebody will have to deal with long after Bush is gone. Not his problem.
Israel will do fine as long as we're in position to honor our guarantee for their oil supplies. If the time comes we can't get oil to israel, they will start hurting. But not until then.
Posted by: J Thomas at Jul 16, 2008 12:24:44 PM
I don't buy the "we're just that crazy" argument on Rosner, tho it may be guiding our own diplomacy.
A "wild man" would not concede that bombing won't actually have much effect on Iran's nuclear program other than to strengthen Iran's will to build nuclear weapons.
Rather, Rosmer sounds like someone desperately trying to contrive a new rationale for bombing because the old rationale was so lame.
Posted by: Anderson at Jul 16, 2008 12:26:01 PM
I think there are two things going on here: the Iranians hope to become champions against the Jews, may even want to be attacked by the West, as long as it isn't devastating enough to wipe them out -- while for the United States, a strategically useful attack on Iran is impossible. Each side knows the other's limitations. So Iran occasionally makes threats against Israel, while the continuous talk about attacking Iran in the U.S. press is similar noise, hoping to become diplomatic pressure -- and this new article is more of the same, cast with a new wrinkle: the word from Israel is that the "man on the street" there is frantic, and this article feeds on that, but actually attacking Iran still makes no sense. The faulty premise is not merely the "Iranians are crazy" thesis. Another weak point is the "international community is slumbering" thesis. It is not. The United States and France at the least are targeting a good deal of effort on Iran, no doubt there are more countries involved in back channels, and the IAEA under el Baradei has made Iran a primary focus -- including clear public warnings about its programs. On the other side, the Iranians must realize that if they ever attacked Israel they would be turned into radioactive glass. Entirely destroyed -- it would not be a mere "risk" from their aggression. They also probably guess accurately that if Israel is attacked by some unknown aggressor and there is no direct link to Iran, it's still the same: Iran will STILL be target No. 1. I think Iran keeps blowing hot air about destroying Israel to (1) whoop up their domestic base because they're on the skids, and possibly (2) to invite a little attack so that they can act like the aggrieved party fighting for the soul of Islam, and maybe so they can feel justified to the world in setting off a big bomb they have hidden somewhere. Believe it or not, these guys care about world opinion. And their hope like any nation's hope is to gather allies -- but in their area there's only one possible: the government of Iraq.
So this is the step that must be AVOIDED -- do NOT attack Iran for a "preventative" reason! Making them martyrs is their plan! It will be the flip that makes their whole psychological game! "Martyrs R Us!" I think one thing we might do it to put the pressure on other Arab countries to go public with their supposedly strong objections to Iran, as the U.S. conservative press insists they secretly harbor. Force them all into a pan-Islamic movement for peace!
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold at Jul 16, 2008 12:27:11 PM
How about we have NO alliance strong enough that we are ever forced into a fight we didn't start. Any while we're at it, how about we stop picking fights ourselves? We don't need best friends - we need trading partners with relationships based on mutual benefit and big huge bombs in our back pocket in case someone wants to start a military fight with us. Geopolitical conflicts sacrifice the lives of many innocents for the agenda of the few and powerful. Stay out of it whenever possible.
Posted by: anne at Jul 16, 2008 2:12:00 PM
And their hope like any nation's hope is to gather allies -- but in their area there's only one possible: the government of Iraq.
Iraq isn't a particularly good ally for them. No army, no sovereignty, that sort of thing. They'd do better to hope for alliance with russia or china, either of which should be quite possible. Both nuclear powers, both with a veto at the UN, both with large populations and large or expanding militaries. China would be better -- china needs iranian oil and needs unimpeded access, and also might not want to hug them so closely after the immediate threat has dissipated.
All that aside, there's an easy solution to this whole problem. Turn the whole middle east into a nuke-free zone. Simple. Easy. Everybody wins. While we're at it we might throw in inspections for chemical and biological weapons.
Israelis don't need to maintain their nuclear and smallpox stocks nearly as much as they need to keep their neighbors from matching them. It's a win for israel. Israel without nukes, israel without repeated threats to nuke their neighbors is a win for everybody else.
No losers. We should do it.
Posted by: J Thomas at Jul 16, 2008 3:29:25 PM
So much time and energy wasted on proliferation that is going to happen anyway. Shouldn't we be more worried about Pakistan's real nukes than Iran's fabled/future ones?
It utterly baffles me that a country that put a man on the moon 40 years ago hasn't - in the past 28 years - figured out a way to shoot down nukes.
I'm also not sure I would rely on MAD as a deterrent when the 'opponent's' leadership is comprised of devout Muslims.
Posted by: meter at Jul 16, 2008 3:35:03 PM
