« Greg Mankiw defends the Paulson plan (from a distance) | Main | What really caused the financial crisis? »
Who should make this decision come January 20?
Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.
Here is the story, from The Guardian. I hope you all have given this matter some thought...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 25, 2008 at 07:33 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Obama would have us out of Iraq and basically out of the question. The Israelis have to ask permission with us in the middle right now. Weird, huh?
Posted by: BoscoH at Sep 25, 2008 7:56:57 PM
This is one reason I'm supporting Obama, first dem I've supported in my life. I don't believe he is as likely to support an Israeli attack on Iran. Based upon Palin's response to a question about second guessing Isreal with respect to a decision to bomb Iranian facilities (Charles Gibson interview I believe), I think she would support such an attack. I think McCain would be quicker on the trigger than even Bush. This sort of thing needs to be a last resort to a pretty solid threat, and we're a ways from that at this time. I'm not anti-Isreal, but I am pro-American and I don't think it is in our interests to support an attack on Iran at this time.
Posted by: glh17 at Sep 25, 2008 8:05:25 PM
BoscoH: Stop being ridiculous, the Israelis would have to ask permission whether we were in Iraq or not.
Tyler: How does it feel to write a NYT column making a very astute point (that people should vote based on foreign policy), only to see it generally disregarded by major media pundits? It makes you slightly more Caplanish, doesn't it? Admit it.
Posted by: Andy McKenzie at Sep 25, 2008 8:11:47 PM
It's unclear whether the candidates' current views will have any bearing on how they will act in office. While Obama says he favors negotiation, he will be forced to be more hawkish to get any leverage in discussions. McCain will inherit a military ill-equipped to handle further conflict. As Tyler points on, "only Nixon can go to China"; so McCain may be actually better positioned to negotiate a solution. Once in office, people tend to change their views and respond to new events, so it's difficult to judge beforehand what will happen. (see Sharon, Wilson, Nixon, etc.)
That said, the hawkishness of your advisers tends to be a reliable predictor of your administration's policies, and McCain's people are tied to a hawkish neoconservatism that even Bush has moved beyond.
Posted by: Thorfinn at Sep 25, 2008 8:32:39 PM
Amazing, if true. This could be the one thing GWB got right. Obviously I don't believe it.
Posted by: meter at Sep 25, 2008 8:33:47 PM
@Andy: Just like they asked us when they leveled the Syrian site a year ago. Seriously, do you remember 1991? We had no presence in the Gulf and the Iraqis just up and overran Kuwait one day. With no resistance, and no hurdles to jump in the way, an Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites is a far easier operation, especially if they decide they can ditch their planes or land them in a country that shares their interest in Iran not going nuclear. I.e. Saudi Arabia. Nobody doubts the ability of Israel to bomb the sites. The limiting factor with us out of Iraq is getting the planes back, which seems like an easily resolved minor consideration if the stakes are as high as presented. If nothing else, Tyler's question is a far more complicated question than it appears on the surface.
Posted by: BoscoH at Sep 25, 2008 8:40:22 PM
I know we have to have to base these sort of evaluations on the givens we have available, and in that respect I can see why people (myself included to an extent) would see McCain as trigger-happy. That said, I'm not sure any of us (that is, those who don't have any sources beyond the media/web) have enough reliable info to deduce, with any confidence, what either candidate would do in a situation like this. Besides that, we are ALSO in the dark to the particulars of the scenario. How advanced IS Iran's nuke program... does anyone really know (links?)? How bellicose are the Israelis (with regard to this, at least, we have access to their previous 'security' actions)? Etc.
To my own perceptions, I'm not sure that the candidates are taking positions at all distinct from those any other fellow party member would take at this point in time - and this is what makes having to vote on the issue of nat'l security so difficult (if you actually do bother voting, which would be odd).
Posted by: Leif at Sep 25, 2008 9:01:44 PM
It's interesting that people are looking at this issue through their personal opinion of whether America should allow Israel to strike Iran, and then evaluating which candidate agrees with that position.
Tyler is asking a different question. The reality is that none of us will ever have all the necessary and relevant facts upon which to make this decision. Our opinions over a general approach to the Middle East are important, but our answers to questions about specific decisions are not, since we are ill-equipped to make those decisions.
The question is which man, McCain or Obama, do we think should make this decision, with all the relevant information. To me, McCain has shown himself to be unpredictable, abrupt, and unilateral in times of crisis and high stress. I'd rather see a more disciplined, even-keeled, and collaborative man like Obama making this decision, whatever he decides.
Posted by: rejewvenator at Sep 25, 2008 9:06:21 PM
Obama has already shown a willingness to take extreme stances to win political support. In Chicago he joined a militant, racist church to prove that he was "black" enough to a doubting south side Chicago constituency.
Obama seems more likely to do something stupid to prove to America that he is "tough" enough.
Obama is a Zelig, he's not a man with a core identity. Four years of Obama and we get to suffer through his search for identity and meaning. It's like grad school, but with consequences.
Posted by: chris at Sep 25, 2008 9:48:21 PM
I don't know who it should be, but it definitely will be a guy who has sat through a couple sermons describing Israel as an apartheid state.
Posted by: y81 at Sep 25, 2008 10:39:42 PM
Do you truly have no fear of the Shahab-6 missile?
You know, the one that can strike in the heart of NATO, possibly as far as London? Do you truly believe those lovely gentleman at the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group are interested only in building crop dusters out of North Korean components? The Iranian launch test earlier this year was no great shakes but they are continuing to work on the two-stage program, it seems.
Or perhaps you believe they are busy working the Shahab into a sweet satellite launch vehicle, surely for the sole purpose of placing birds to better broadcast Islamic TV. I don't care how you feel about the current Iraq situation, you must evaluate the Shahab question independently.
And if we won't do it, I would certainly hope the Israelis will. The Tate is a nice place, worth preserving.
Posted by: TotalitarianizmKillz at Sep 25, 2008 10:43:50 PM
I agree that Obama is personally more reluctant to use military force than McCain. However, Obama changed his tune pretty darn quick on whether Iran and North Korea were threats to the US, a few months ago.
If some international crisis occurred, or worse yet another domestic terrorist attack, a President Obama would have to nuke somebody to get Rush Limbaugh to leave him alone.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Sep 25, 2008 10:57:31 PM
They didn't have our permission to bomb the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the early 80s, but they went ahead and bombed it anyway. Saddam was our guy back then too, just "a little rough around the edges."
Posted by: Brendan at Sep 25, 2008 11:00:47 PM
bomb,bomb,bomb
bomb,bomb, iran
Posted by: john mccain at Sep 26, 2008 12:10:51 AM
Obama vs Old Bomber: Why Obama is not such a no brainer (to me).
Will is a double-edged sword. The bay of pigs was he result of too much groupthink.
Wiki: "The CIA's near certainty that the Cuban people would rise up and join them was based on the agency's extremely weak presence on the ground in Cuba."
Sound familiar?
Learning from this, Kennedy successfully got missiles out of Cuba...by a red hair.
Sometimes Democrats want to signal tough. It would take a strong will to stand up to the not insignificant interests calling for an attack. Sometimes a strong will leads the agencies to fix the facts around the narrative, sometimes a strong will allows a leader to find the truth amidst the twaddle of the yes-men.
I give Obama maybe a 60-40 on this one. And I'm not 100% certain Iran isn't a threat, although I am certain I don't want a war with them. But, does having a strong will in the White House who is smart enough not to blow his wad make war less likely?
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 26, 2008 2:41:49 AM
"It's like grad school, but with consequences."
Grad school has consequences, 3 years lost, I know myself even less and have learned to hate everyone even more. The difference is that I can't kill them or take their money or take a prime time slot on all major networks and preach to them about how much they are being a-holes.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 26, 2008 2:45:59 AM
Statements about what we shouldn't do are easy, who has an answer about what we should? I strongly oppose any more military intervention by anybody anywhere in the Middle East. Enough damage has been done. However, how DO we deal with Mr. Ahm-a-nut-job from Iran potentially having control over nuclear weapons? If he says that Israel is a stinking corpse, can we blame the Israelis for taking him at his word? I'm not saying that any preemptive strike is justified, I'm just saying that it is likely a dangerous situation regardless, and I'm waiting around for a libertarian to make a positive declarative statement about what would be a good way to diffuse a potential Iranian threat, instead of only talking about what shouldn't be done.
Posted by: student at Sep 26, 2008 4:27:49 AM
"This is one reason I'm supporting Obama, first dem I've supported in my life. I don't believe he is as likely to support an Israeli attack on Iran."
You miss the point. Isreal asked because we have common objectives. When they have disagreements with Bush, they have to take that seriously -- because action will have consequences. If Obama chose not to support an Iseali attack, I expect their response would be, "So what?"
Posted by: SheetWise at Sep 26, 2008 5:30:35 AM
Grad school has consequences, 3 years lost, I know myself even less and have learned to hate everyone even more.
Bummer. Sounds like you picked either the wrong program or the wrong school for you. (Or, as Tyler said in another context, you're just not too bright.)
Posted by: at Sep 26, 2008 7:34:27 AM
I'm not sure what the treatment effect of grad school is here... Almost continuously I find I know less about myself and hate people more. Maybe grad school would slow these rates? Maybe andrew is a BETTER person for having attended :)
Posted by: a person at Sep 26, 2008 8:21:39 AM
"You miss the point. Isreal asked because we have common objectives. When they have disagreements with Bush, they have to take that seriously -- because action will have consequences. If Obama chose not to support an Iseali attack, I expect their response would be, "So what?" Posted by: SheetWise at Sep 26, 2008 5:30:35 AM"
WINNER
Posted by: Tom at Sep 26, 2008 8:56:28 AM
"3 years lost, I know myself even less and have learned to hate everyone even more."
Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you weren't ready if you didn't know yourself beforehand.
I completed graduate business coursework at three different schools, earning an MBA from one of the top ones. IMO, what one gets out of graduate school is directly proportional to what one puts in. My professors at both top tier schools and middle level schools were knowledgeable, and most were willing to spend many hours helping eager stuudents. My experiences with classmates was also highly positive at both level schools.
Not sure about the importance in other fields, but I always recommend that prospective MBA's try real world work for a couple of years first.
Posted by: John Dewey at Sep 26, 2008 9:52:05 AM
It is very likely that the election won't determine IF the Israeli's strike, but WHEN. An Obama victory will have them striking before inauguration, while a McCain victory might have them waiting as they'll perceive him as indifferent or even helpful.
Posted by: Steve at Sep 26, 2008 10:58:44 AM
I hope you all have given this matter some thought...
But of course it's still hard to say. Sen. Obama seemed to be out in front in demanding that we attack Taliban in Pakistan even if the Pakistani government didn't like it. And so many of the people who think that it's "obvious" that Sen. McCain would approve of an attack on Iran were following Sy Hersh and others in claiming that it was "obvious" that the President would have approved of an attack on Iran this year.
Posted by: John Thacker at Sep 26, 2008 11:01:24 AM
I trust neither, both are basically puppets....Obama foreign policy is strongly influenced by Zbignew Zbrezinski...the guy who encouraged China to support Pol Pot and embellishes long wars with Russia
McCain foreign policy is strongly influenced by Henry Kissinger ...the guy who supported using 9/11 as anexcuse to invade Iraq, a guy who supports Wolfowitz doctrine, policy of premptive war and bombed. The guy who was started off heading the 9/11 commission but quit when families confronted him with being paid so much money by the saudis. Why did he quit? he refuses to talk about it!
Both advisors were strongly in favor of the long running isolationist policies of blockading and limiting trade with Iraq. They are both happy to kill children if it increases the "balance of power" in their paranoid estimates. If you "free trade" hypcrites support either foreing policy team then we know your real interests do not lie in advocating free trade.
Both have been lifetime employees of David Rockefeller and his various foundations, trusts etc.. read their books
Posted by: Gabe at Sep 26, 2008 1:04:30 PM
