Focus U.S.A. / 'The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East'

[Jefferson23]

* Doesn't get much more insane than this imo.


Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., believes the only option available to contain Iran's atomic ambitions is a series of assaults on its non-nuclear facilities.

By Natasha Mozgovaya

Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., believes the only option available to contain Iran's atomic ambitions is a series of assaults on its non-nuclear facilities. He maintains that President Obama's attempts at dialogue have failed, and drastic steps must be taken to prevent the U.S. losing its Middle East dominance to Tehran.

Writing in the U.S. Army's "Military Review" journal, Etzioni lists four possible responses to Iran's nuclear program - engagement, sanctions, military strikes and deterrence. He concludes that engagement has failed, sanctions are not likely to work, military strikes on Iran's suspected nuclear sites are unlikely to be effective either and might only delay the program (Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes this would probably be by one to three years), and deterrence works with rational actors, but it’s a gamble to rely on it with non-rational actors. This, he hypothesizes, leaves strikes on Iranian infrastructure that is not necessarily related to its nuclear program.

Speaking to Haaretz on Wednesday, Etzioni concedes that such a move could be interpreted by Iran as a declaration of full-scale war.

“That’s a fair point," he says, "but what’s the alternative? The best way will be to sit at the table and solve all our problems peacefully. I was in war, I was in the Palmach , and I don’t like shooting anybody. It comes to the declaration that there are no other alternatives. Sanctions are not going to work, everybody knows that. Assuming that if they have nuclear weapons we are going to contain them – it’s a very risky assumption.”

This option is not mentioned in the mainstream discourse.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/focus-u-s-a/focus-u-s-a-the-u-s-will-have-to-confront-iran-or-give-up-the-middle-east-1.297931

[leveymg]

1. Speaking of "non-rational actors." This proves there is at least one in the region.

There's an assumption of non-rationality that seeks to extent that disorder to the U.S. Etzioni apparently assumes we can be talked or pressured into starting another war - the really crazy thing is, I'm not sure he's entirely wrong about that expectation.

[Scuba]

2. Give up all that war?????

[Hawkowl]

3. Giving up the middle east gives the US the middle east

Ironic eh? The reason Iran has grown much more influential is because we destroyed the counterweight of a strong secular Sunni government in Iraq. We then destroyed the strong theocratic Sunni government in Afghanistan and are very industriously destabilizing the secular government in Pakistan.

If we just packed up and went home, then these other regional powers could keep Iran in check. The US is too overextended to confront Iran on any military level other than a nuclear level.

[Diclotican]

4. Hawkowl

Hawkowl

And if US WAS to use the nuclear level, you and the west might as wel loose the middle aest forever... Not to say piss the rest of the world - with China and Russia in front.. If US really want to be un-popular in the world, they as might try the nuclear option now and get it overwith rather than rasling with the sabel to the next "gut feeling" president got the power in US...

Diclotican

[Hawkowl]

5. I'm not advocating nuclear

Don't misunderstand me. I'm in no way advocating any type of war with Iran. In fact, I think if Iran had its own nuclear weapons, it would be a stabilizing influence in the middle east since all its neighbors have nuclear weapons.

Just because my name is Hawkowl (its a rare owl not a hawk) doesn't mean I'm not a dove!

[Diclotican]

6. Hawkowl

Hawkowl

Ah, then I understand better.. Good to se that not everyone out there advocate for war all the time.. War is hell, as everyone who have experienced it for the most would write down on.. I have known a few in my own familiy who in one or another form was active in word war two. And the war never ended in their memory, even tho the war itself ended more than 50-60 year ago...

A war with Iran, when you take into the case where US is trecht to the limit in iraq, and afghanistan, I seriousy belive US want to go to war in Iran too.. Iran is not Iraq, and many thousands of americans would die in the hillsides if a war with Iran was ever to broke out.. Not to say that the US forces in Iraq would be attaced by everyone with an able body and a AK47.. I fear that someone need to read their classics again, specially the story of the 10.000 greeks who had to flee the persians after the great empire of Alexander the great broke up, and the persioans dedsided they wanted a rematch... Even tho the story is 2500 year old, and the US have a far more advanced army than the greeks had the logistical nightmare been in a desert. A modern army need a LOT of logistical matriel even in peacetime, in a war zone, as the iraqi desert would be, an army the size of what is in Iraq, on the run would need extremely mutch just to get it pushing true.. And it is not that sure that most of the iraqi nabourhood want 150.000 americans on their soil either... In a study a few year back, where the US had to leve Iraq, to go north, to friendly areas, it was a grim history where mutch of the equipment they had to take with them, could end up in the hands of enemies of US.. And it was not even sure that the Turkys government, who in most cases have been really friendly with US wanted to help them protecting the US army on the run..


A nuclear war in the Middle east would be horrible, not to say it would more than posible end up in something no one belived it to be in the start.. Specailly China who have had a large interest in the oil sector in Iran for a long time, and help them rebuild and mdoernize the oil field would be really pissed of if US was to attac Iran, either to stop them building the bomb, or to make posible a more "FRIENDLY" regime in Teheran... And Russia have more or less told the US that if russian experts in nuclear reactors was harmed, the answer would be more than just a strongly worded letter to the UN.. And russia have a LOT of equipment from old times, who they more than happy would give Iran if US was to harm russians sivillians working on the reactors.. Not to say the new SAM missiles Iran want, but that Russia is little hestitated to sell them. And US is trying their best to convince Russia not to sell to Iran...

The ironiy of it all is that the US was one of the states who wanted Iran to have a nuclear program in the early 1970s, and more or less pushed a big reactor to the iran shan in 1976.. The groundwork for the reactor was finnished, as the irani revolution in 1979, and if just Khomeheini had keept the peace for a 5-8 year withouth revolution, the regime could have had a brand new reactor with all the trimmings.. Not just a low scale reactor, but the real one, like the raactors that US was buling the bomb with...
This days US is scared that Iran would give the bomb away for free to Hizbollah, and other extremist groups out there.. I really doubt that the current government in Iran want to give loose cannons their prime weapon.. They might say they are usefull as it is, but to give them a nuclear weapon, that is a another story I am afraid of... But Tom Clancy did a really good book about it in one of his novels - even tho it was a israly bomb, who was lost in the 1973 war, and ended up blowing up a part of an american City... (by the way, they discovered the plutonium to be prodused in a Savannah Reactor!)

Diclotican

[Hawkowl]

8. Very informative

I agree that "someone needs to read the classics". It has been a great concern of mine that Obama seems to be completely ignorant of history in general, and military and economic history in particular.

I agree that it would be an absolute disaster for the US to attack Iran. The US would lose all its allies and be vastly outnumbered. It would lead to World War III in my opinion. The most frightening thing about it is the fact I believe that the US military and its defense contractors WANT WWIII. They view it as simply a way to make even more money.

I do not know if we will be able to prevent an attack on Iran or WWIII. I expect the economy to continue its slide into depression and that puts pressure on the politicians to distract the citizenry with an outside enemy through more war.

The one bright spot I see is the Obama administration is coming down harder and harder on Israel, which may prevent them from attacking Iran.

[Diclotican]

10. Hawkowl

Hawkowl

To me, as an forreigner in a country wil far less influence in the world than US, it looks like your leaders tend to be somewhat ignorant of the history before them. And it also looks like many americans dosen't want to have leaders who know they history, and have read the classics and maybe even know a few things about war, and what war is all about.. Missery and dead humans.. My best guess is that leaders US have had in the past, like Truman, FDR and even Eisenhower would not even get to the primary today, becouse they was to smart, and to educated and many americans of today dosen't like a fellow in the white house, who is educated and know a little of the world.. Even tho I guess that the likes of GWB should not be easy to break for a long while, some parts of your voting is really confusing me. And also scare me becouse it looks like many americans would rather have a fellow they can take a drink with, than a man, or woman who maybe are not the most easygoing person, but who understand and can do the extra...

Mr Obama is as long as I know it, (and I admit, i know to little) is at least an educated man, who know little.. But he have some dep holes in his knowlegde about the history i guess.. But it also looks like he tries to get the job don, and even try to educated himself about the cases he have on his desk.. To me he looks like a man who dosen't just jump to a conclution, but who work his way around, and take his time before he is doing something.. That is something that the US have not been used for a long time I guess.. A President who think, and who act after he got some facts on the table.. He might be in error many times, but compared to the past couple of years I would say mr Obama is a amazing feat of you... But off course he have to clean up the mess after Jr, and also to try to get out of Iraq with "some" dignety even tho the best have had to pack it all down, get the soldiers out, and sell what they cant get with them to the iraqi govenrment, hatch down and se what happend after the last US soldiers is out of Iraq.. Iraq is a tenderbox, whatever president want to keep soldiers there.. And the best should have been to get out, and let Iraqis get it on.. The sivil war between Sunni Shia and the Kurds are just simmering under the top deck, and wil explode anyway you se it.. And like in other parts where the "problems" have been bottled down, when it finaly explode it really explode becouse of the pressure behind it...

A war in Iran, where the US are attacing would have the word DISASTER all over it and would cost US the little reptutation it might have in the middle east today. Many or most americans dosen't se to care or know, but the anger who is growing in many of the "allied nations" is serous and can end up in a few revolutions who would put the Iranian revolution of 1979 to shame in violence and fire...

I am also afraid of the World War 3 thing.. I have had some familiymembers who was in the last word war, and the war never ended in their mind, even tho the war ended 60 year ago... And the last war devestated most of europe, and I would say also it harmed most of the planet as we know it - AND that was with convential means.. The nuclear weapons detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nothing compared to wha US and the other nuclear powered nations have today Just ONE of your Boomers could destroy rougly 180 citys worldwide... And even if a nuclear excange was confined to a smaler parts of the globe it would be hell to play all over the place.. Becouse of the radiactive fallout, and so on..

I hope your current president dosen't want or dosen't let his generals get the best of him, and let him down the road to a war with Iran. What I hope is that the president, ad his advicors is seriousy about making this diplomatic, and get the iranians to understand that their nuclear program IS worrisome, and that US want to sit down, and calm this down to a level who grown ups can talk... And maybe, just maybe even get a kind of "peace deal" with the Iranians.. That would be a triumf to behold in Washington DC, if Obama could make a form of peace deal with the current regime in Teheran, that could close the enemey feeling US and Iran have living with the last 30 or så year.. If US reqonize the current regime - the Hizbollah, and Hamaz would have one less friend in the world. And then maybe Iran would se some real shange on their own, as most of their population WANT normal life and normal contact with the rest of the world - included United States of America.. The old guard is dying out as we speak.. The current president in Iran is just a clown, who not even have the full suport from the real rulers in Iran.. And most iranians WANT reforms real reforms who could give iranians a better life. And maybe also push Iranians from the decade old "night" it have been in the last 30 year or so.. Iranians are not un-educated, and it is more woman in university than men this days.. With reforms - on iranians terms, Iran could prosper and be one afluent country in the middle aast.. With a far more diverse economical and industrial base than US current friend Saudi Arabia would manage to get anytime soon. They even build AIRPLANES in Iran.. And have keept 40 year 747-200s airborne even tho they for the last 30 year have not been aloved to buy american spare parts.. Not easy, but they have somehow managed to keept the old birds airborne - at least some of them...

Last time we had a deeeeeeeeep depression it ended first when US get into the world war itself, and the whole industry was made aviable for the war effort.. Everyone who had two hands and a back get work, and many millions get into uniform to wage a war against the evil germans.. And even after the war the americans was prosperius and had a life standard that most europeans, even they whith old money could just dream of.. And as many have said after, the depression ended first when US was forced into the war - when Japan bombed Pearl Habour in 1941. I hope we can not go into the same trap again, that the only way to exit a deep depression is ot wage a full scale war with someone. Who can US go to war with then?. Russia or China?.. Then they must hurry as both of them is rebuild or modernizering their armed forces..

Israel can't do everything they want, with inpunity either.. Im a suporter of the State of Israel, but they have acted really stupid many year now.. Its good to se a president who is telling Israel to get their act togheter. And stop making more enemeies by repressing the palestinians as they do.. But it takes two to dance a tango, and the palestinians have a lot to work with on their own, before they can hope for a better future than the past.. Who maybe are not mutch to say... Israel have been somewhat spoiled becouse they belive, and know they would ALLWAYS have a suporter who would defend the country to the last nail if nessesary.. Its maybe time to try to tell them that you have our suport, but you have to do it different, so it maybe would be a hope of peace.. ?

The best hope is maybe if the children of both parts get to know eatch other, to find some common ground, and se that the other is not that bad as they are been told?..

Diclotican

[Vampire Knight]

7. A nuclear Iran

is a disturbing prospect. Would they become belligerent, carrying out the threats that they've been continually making against Israel and the West? Or would they become another North Korea, making noise every once in a while for petty acknowledgement and tribute from other countries?

[Diclotican]

11. Vampire Knight

Vampire Knight

Or be an responsible actor in the world - as USA, UK, RUSSA, PRC France is?... The treat they have making against Israel, are a REALLY BAD TRANSLATING job at the CNN, who claim that the president was claiming that Israel was to be destroyed. That was not ezcactly what he say, even tho I belive that clown to want to get Israel on their knees and out in the ocean once and for all...

I doubt that Iran anytime soon have the capability to make a bomb, not a modern, advanced one who can be put in a ICBM.. It tooks US and the rest of the nuclear club years to build what was nessesary, and even if Iran was to get knowhow many places, it would still be a time before the different pieces can be build to one thing..

Iran are no North Korea.. The regime of North Korea is far different from Iran, and have deep roots in the culture of the Korean, who is far different from what is the case in Iran.. The who country's cant even be given the resembelence of the same.. If you know your history, you whould undestand that the similarity is far from the truth

Diclotican

[Vampire Knight]

13. Thanks.

I wanted some thoughts like this to bounce around. I agree that the regime is not totally comparable to most examples that we could come up with. Given the culture, the harsh treatment of gays, dissenters, etc., the election fraud, the propensity for illegally taking hostages, the less than covert funding of terrorist organizations, etc., I am highly pessimistic about Iran's chances of becoming, as you put it, a "responsible actor". They have proven over and over again to be unprincipled, and I don't expect them to change that after acquiring The Bomb. Why would they?

[Diclotican]

12. Vampire Knight

Vampire Knight

Or be an responsible actor in the world - as USA, UK, RUSSA, PRC France is?... The treat they have making against Israel, are a REALLY BAD TRANSLATING job at the CNN, who claim that the president was claiming that Israel was to be destroyed. That was not ezcactly what he say, even tho I belive that clown to want to get Israel on their knees and out in the ocean once and for all...

I doubt that Iran anytime soon have the capability to make a bomb, not a modern, advanced one who can be put in a ICBM.. It tooks US and the rest of the nuclear club years to build what was nessesary, and even if Iran was to get knowhow many places, it would still be a time before the different pieces can be build to one thing..

Iran are no North Korea.. The regime of North Korea is far different from Iran, and have deep roots in the culture of the Korean, who is far different from what is the case in Iran.. The who country's cant even be given the resembelence of the same.. If you know your history, you whould undestand that the similarity is far from the truth

Diclotican

[Larkspur]

17. A counter to Israel who has hundreds of nuclear weapons

and is NOT part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
Even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the US, Israel and Europe have a lot more.
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation, also doesn't want Iran, a Shia nation, to have nuclear weapons, so that's why the Saudis may turn a blind eye if Israel or the US bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

[Vampire Knight]

19. I don't want anyone

to have nukes, but right now, that's impractical. If we're going to triage this situation, the most important thing is to keep nukes away from the particularly demented kids. Despite what anyone may think of Israel's legitimacy, YES, they have nukes, and they have not used them. Surprisingly, they seem to have some restraint. Would Iran have restraint? I'm kinda dubious on that one.

I think that Saudi Arabia will support Israel to an extent if they want to shut down Iran again. After all, Saudi Arabia might find itself in Iran's crosshairs too. They have offered their airspace if Israel should "need it". But I think that these allowances are probably limited.

[marmar]

9. Etzioni, who also goes by the name John Bolton.......

:P

[Jefferson23]

14. LOL, good one marmar.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Professor of International Relations And How To Fuck Them Up

The man is a moron. "Etzioni concedes that such a move could be interpreted by Iran as a declaration of full-scale war" - attacking their infrastructure could be interpreted as a declaration of war? There's hardly anything more war-like you can do, you idiot. And, to cap it all, he doesn't think there's a particularly good chance of it working, but he'd like the bombing anyway, just to make the US military feel good about itself:

...I think it’s an air force job and not an army job. There should be no boots on the ground”.

That’s what the Israeli high command thought at the beginning of the second war in Lebanon - that they could bomb some strategic sites and Hezbollah would fold. It didn’t happen.

“True, there are many studies showing that the air attacks are not as effective as people think they are. But we always come back to the question - if we might try and fail, should we not try? We are talking about the U.S. credibility as an international power.

He wants to kill some Iranians and start the biggest war since Vietnam "for U.S. credibility". How the hell did this guy become a professor? He's like a Cheeto-stained loon in his pyjamas in a basement.

[Demeter]

16. Give Up the Middle East?

Since when did we buy, or get born there? It's not ours, and we don't own it. Therefore, we can't give it up.

We can however refrain from making any attacks, political, economic, or military, on the populations and governments that DO own it.

[Prometheus Bound]

18. Argues "the most basic right of all people is to be free from deadly violence, maiming, and torture"

In his latest book.

Bombing them to smithereens, on the other hand, well that'd be fine.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitai_Etzioni (Security first)

[IndianaGreen]

20. Give up the Middle East! It was never ours to have!

This empire must come to the same end as the Soviet empire.

[ShamelessHussy]

21. if iran gets nukes, will she use them?

i don't think so... i think it will act as a deterrent to other nations against declaring war on her.

which seems to work for us, so why not them, too?

anyway, that seems to be the take away from our behavior since 2001... if you have nukes, we wont invade, e.g. N. Korea, however, if you don't have them, look out.

that's why i think we are in such a hurry to get in there, and probably will before long.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Nukes will be a deterrent to US and Israeli aggression

which is why Israel is going bonkers. Israel prefers to murder civilians and bomb countries without impunity. A nuclear Iran will put an end to that!

[mbperrin]

23. OK, I give up! Bring everybody home! I'm finally glad someone put this choice

out there, because I was afraid the warmongers would be in charge forever, but NOW we get to CHOOSE to give up!

Good! Now bring 'em home!