Israel Matzav

Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?

In an interview with Al-Jazeera's English-language channel that was aired on Monday, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged US allies in the Arab world to strengthen their military capabilities and defense cooperation with Washington as a means of pressuring Iran to back off its nuclear program.

Gates said "one of the pathways to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security, not enhance it.

"So the more that our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it," he said.

I will have video of the interview (which for some reason does not included the quoted statements) further down in this post, but first I want to discuss Gates' call to Arab countries.

Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.

Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.

America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.

That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.

But there is another point I’m afraid I have to disagree with: That Iran would “lose” a war with Israel Perhaps now, perhaps for the next few months or (at most) the next few years. But as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons (if they haven’t bought them already), they can arm their Shehab-3 missiles and foreign bought submarines with them—and is there anyone so naive as to doubt that sooner or later, probably sooner—a nuclear exchange with Israel will result.

That is what people don’t get in this situation: it won’t matter whether Israel has more nukes or bigger nukes or better delivery systems. The logic of nuclear deterrence that once prevailed in the U.S./USSR Cold War no longer obtains. Now one side (Iran) feels it can absorb and survive nuclear retaliation if necessary to exterminate the other side (Israel).

Once Israel had a nuclear deterrent to conventional attack. Now however consider the words to be found in footnote 55 to the indictment of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for inciting to genocide. Footnote 55 to the indictment, the “Referral” to the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention described in the previous post, is the heart of the matter, the heart of darknesss.

These words, this genocidal sentiment, which I have been citing since 2002 in writing about the situation, in postulating the prospect of a second Holocuast, were uttered by the leader of what the Western press has lately taken to calling the “pragmatic conservatives” in Iran, Ayatollah Hashemi Rasfanjani:

“If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession [meaning nuclear weapons]—on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This…is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”

“Nothing on the ground” versus mere “damage”. In other words, as one rather dramatic version has it, Israel is “a one bomb state”. A state you can wipe off the map, along with its people, with a single nuclear device. Yes Terhan might be destroyed in return, other Muslim capitals as well perhaps, by Israeli retaliation. But at the end of that bleak day there will be “nothing on the ground” in Israel, once the homeland of five million Jews. And there will still be a billion or so Muslims, many of whom will be celebrating the outcome.

...

Once Iran was distant from Israel (though within range of the Shehab 3 missile). Now Israel’s borders are surrounded by Iranian catspaws, Hizbullah and Hamas. Is there any doubt that, one way or another, sooner or later “one bomb” can reach Tel Aviv? Remind me how Iran would “lose” this war.

There is no deterrent to suicidal martyrdom, involuntary mass martrydom. No deterrent that depends on belief in the value of life by genocidal murderers on a “martyrdom mission”. Is there a solution to this problem aside from pre-emptive strikes which will likely be catastrophic for both sides and probably only postpone a second Holocaust? Are there any deterrrents that will stop Ahmadinejad and his ilk from carrying out their genocidal designs? I wish I could believe there were. Any ideas?

Because he believes that Iraq can be deterred, Robert Gates, like his boss, feels no sense of urgency to disarm Iran.

Here's the interview with Gates from al-Jazeera. The part about Iran and its nuclear weapons development starts around 18:15 and goes until the end of the video at the 23:00 mark.

Let's go to the videotape.



I was actually surprised to see Gates deflect the comments about Israel's purported nuclear weapons capability. Given that some in the Obama administration have suggested trying to force Israel into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear Gates admit that Israel possessing nuclear weapons is different than Iran possessing nuclear weapons. I just wish he could see that Iran will not be deterred.

What could go wrong?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:16 PM