-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner
Friday, January 13, 2012 - 8:41 PM
Share
This has been an exceedingly weird week with respect to the escalating dispute between Iran and countries not thrilled with Iran's nuclear program. On the one hand, you have the United States going to great lengths to widen and deepen the sanctions regime against Iran and deter Iran from trying to close the Straits of Hormuz. On the other hand, you have U.S. officials contradicting themselves and backtracking from statements made to the Washington Post over the precise purpose of the sanctions. On the third hand, you have signals that Turkey is brokering another round of negotiations between Iran and the P5 + 1.
And then, in the last hand, you have... Israel. Some weird s**t has been going down. Following the apparent assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took great pains to "categorically deny" U.S. involvment. In a New York Times front-pager, U.S. officials were even more explicit:
The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity. The statements by the United States appeared to reflect serious concern about the growing number of lethal attacks, which some experts believe could backfire by undercutting future negotiations and prompting Iran to redouble what the West suspects is a quest for a nuclear capacity.
“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, “categorically” denying “any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”
“We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Also this week, FP ran a story by Mark Perry describing Israel's "false flag" operation to recruit Pakistani terrorists. In the essay, Perry gets the following quotes from retired U.S. intelligence officials:
There's no question that the U.S. has cooperated with Israel in intelligence-gathering operations against the Iranians, but this was different. No matter what anyone thinks, we're not in the business of assassinating Iranian officials or killing Iranian civilians....
We don't do bang and boom... and we don't do political assassinations.
Contrast this with the Israeli quotes in the NYT story:
The Israeli military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, writing on Facebook about the attack, said, “I don’t know who took revenge on the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear,” Israeli news media reported....
A former senior Israeli security official, who would speak of the covert campaign only in general terms and on the condition of anonymity, said the uncertainty about who was responsible was useful. “It’s not enough to guess,” he said. “You can’t prove it, so you can’t retaliate. When it’s very, very clear who’s behind an attack, the world behaves differently.” (emphasis added)
I think the bolded section in the last paragraph suggests some intuition about what is happening. If it's true that ambiguity about who is responsible for covert action is useful, and the United States is categorically denying its role in the assassination part of the covert action, then the Obama administration is openly and clearly signaling to Israel to cut it out.
As to why the United States is doing this, I'd posit one or a combination of the following reasons:
1) Washington might have moral or legal qualms with the assassination dimension of these covert actions;
2) Such assasinations give the Iranian government cover to conduct its own assassinations campaign, which winnows the number of scientists the United States can recruit for its own intelligence;
3) The Obama administration thinks it can topple the regime, but these assassinations will be counterproductive;
4) The Obama administration has been trying to get Iran back to the bargaining table, and this kind of covert action stops that from happening;
5) The Obama administration is fragmented and therefore not entirely certain what it's aims are in Iran, but the policy principals know that what Israel is doing ain't helping.
I'm leaning towards (5) at this point, but I'd entertain other explanations in the comments below.
Developing... in some very bizarre ways.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has some further reporting that reveals a bit of the current uncertainty and the bureaucratic wrangling that appears to be going on. Some key parts:
U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.
President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.
Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week....
Mr. Panetta and other top officials have privately sought assurances from Israeli leaders in recent weeks that they won't take military action against Iran. But the Israeli response has been noncommittal, U.S. officials said.
U.S. officials briefed on the military's planning said concern has mounted over the past two years that Israel may strike Iran. But rising tensions with Iran and recent changes at Iranian nuclear sites have ratcheted up the level of U.S. alarm.
"Our concern is heightened," a senior U.S. military official said of the probability of an Israeli strike over U.S. objections.
Tehran crossed at least one of Israel's "red lines" earlier this month when it announced it had begun enriching uranium at the Fordow underground nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom.
The planned closing of Israel's nuclear plant near Dimona this month, which was reported in Israeli media, sounded alarms in Washington, where officials feared it meant Israel was repositioning its own nuclear assets to safeguard them against a potential Iranian counterstrike.
Despite the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, U.S. officials have consistently puzzled over Israeli intentions. "It's hard to know what's bluster and what's not with the Israelis," said a former U.S. official.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Well, this is just peachy:
The IRNA state news agency said Saturday that Iran's Foreign Ministry has sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. saying that it has "evidence and reliable information" that the CIA provided "guidance, support and planning" to assassins "directly involved" in Roshan's killing.
The U.S. has denied any role in the assassination....
In the clearest sign yet that Iran is preparing to strike back for Roshan's killing, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, the spokesman for Iran's Joint Armed Forces Staff, was quoted by the semiofficial ISNA news agency Saturday as saying that Tehran was "reviewing the punishment" of "behind-the-scene elements" involved in the assassination.
"Iran's response will be a tormenting one for supporters of state terrorism," he said, without elaborating. "The enemies of the Iranian nation, especially the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime, or Israel, have to be held responsible for their activities."
EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY, IRAN, ISRAEL, MIDDLE EAST, NONPROLIFERATION, TWO-LEVEL GAMES, UNITED STATES 
Perhaps a sense that things are escalating too quickly and that Iran might really go ahead with its threat? Admittedly I doubt many in the U.S government are really that worried about breaking a blockade but a good statesman would try to avoid military clashes until it's unavoidable.
In any case I'm guessing it's a mix of 1, 2 and 4 with maybe some 5 mixed in. At least I hope there isn't anyone in the government seriously considering an attempt at regime change over the next few years. It seems much safer to let Iranian conservatives attack each other.
a: that Israel does not give a sh*t about American interests
b: it believes it can rely on America to back up any attacks it makes for the following reason
http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100
It's an election year, how do we expect Obama to act once the Chorus of Congressional Prostitutes begins to screech?
c: the only thing that will change the equation is when seismic detectors pick up the Iranian nuclear test. We and Israel are assuring that that's their only viable option -- endure the effects of the sanctions, blame the West and Israel and build several nuclear weapons, mount them on solid-fuel missiles, and acquire North Korean invulnerability.
Parts of the administration may be trying to negotiate, while others are leaning more towards supporting the sanctions, and the assassination(s) is a) diverting focus from either of these and b) causing more tension within the administration over which is the better course.
Not so sure, except that the assassins are almost surely Iranian
The categorical denials by the U.S. don't seem to me such a clear signal to Israel to cut it out. The whole world was assuming from the first that it was Israel. All the American denials do is up the suspicion. They certainly don't guarantee it is correct, and Israel seems quite content to be suspected.
I don't understand 2:
"Such assasinations give the Iranian government cover to conduct its own assassinations campaign, which winnows the number of scientists the United States can recruit for its own intelligence."
Iranian assassinations won't winnow the number of Iranian scientists. I suppose you mean Israeli assassinations winnow the number of Iranian scientists available for recruitment.
I'm with you on 5, but I would add that whoever is actually doing the assassinations is almost surely Iranian. I don't believe for a moment that foreigners could operate successfully there, over and over.
Why would Iran arrange for the murder of highly valuable scientists on a project that they seem to be clutching to as their guarantee of protection from America? You can't just grow scientists. To improve the standing of the conservative branch as opposed to the more liberal side? The conservatives obviously feel secure enough that they're willing to fight each other as much as the opposition. If it was because the Iranian government doubted their loyalty that might be something but even then it would make far more sense to quietly lock them up. This method would simply devastate morale among any scientists involved in the project and tell the Iranian people that their government is incapable of protecting them.
Additionally this isn't the first time this has happened and usually the U.S hasn't been so clear in its denials. Either the threat of blockade has policy makers worried or Israel really failed to clear this with the U.S.
Actually,they dont have to have foreingers carrying out assasinations in Iran with the right amount of money,one can recruit operatives anywhere in the world.
We have all these American born citizens of Iranian parents there in Iran,or wnadering form neighbouring countries under the cover as being "Students" or visiting relatives ,but we always deny 200% that they have anything to do with spying,but at least one did admit to being an agent but fortunately for her, it was not that serious so she was freed and returned back to the US.
Every one knows who is behind these assasintaion and the virus Stunex virus that attacked their program
If they were Iranian-American then by definition they are foreign to Iran to some degree. If someone is German-American I assume that they are a citizen of the U.S and that they may or may not be a citizen of Germany. Incidentally the U.S simply doesn't have the same record as Israel for assassinations.
"Why would Iran arrange for the murder of highly valuable scientists on a project that they seem to be clutching to as their guarantee of protection from America?"
Because their usefulness becomes dramatically decreased if they start thinking that defection is an option. Political reliability of the scientists may be in question here. Distrust of the regime is somewhat generational there. It can be used to keep the other scientists in line.
"I'm with you on 5, but I would add that whoever is actually doing the assassinations is almost surely Iranian. I don't believe for a moment that foreigners could operate successfully there, over and over."
Even Iranian expats would have the same troubles as a foreign team operating over there simply due to the problems of maintaining cover, communications and just getting them in and out of the country without being caught.
Not to mention Panetta's comments
Panetta: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That's a red line for us."
!!!!!!!
OK, so while the USA might be "concerned" that Iran is developing the "capability" to make nukes Panetta is actually admitting that there isn't actually anything illegal - or even "wrong" - with Iran achieving that.
What would be "wrong" is them taking the next step to actually manufacturing a bomb, which then becomes something that The USA Must Do Something About.
Well, in that case what's the rationale with the sanctions?
After all, the sanctions are intended to make Iran stop e.n.r.i.c.h.m.e.n.t., which means they are intended to stop Iran from acquiring a "nuclear capability".
Which, according to Panetta, simply ISN'T a Red Line for America.
What The F**k!!!!
Israel wants to make sure that Iran,or any other Arab state,can not threaten them ecomically or militarily,and have been pushing the US to attack Iran right after Iran was taken out.
Unfortunately the US has constanly carried out Israels dictates many times to the detrement of americans trust and america to those in the reigion.
Sadly as long as the status remains,that that the US only listens Israel,not even some of our own voices,and our policies are all made around and predicated on what is always in Israels best interest above our own,we will always be in difficulties,and possibly eternal wars and conflicts,with the possibilty of ending it all for the universe
"...Israel wants to make sure that Iran,or any other Arab state..."
Iran is not an Arab state. It is Persian (Asian).
" then the Obama administration is openly and clearly signaling to Israel to cut it out."
The obvious anser and most likely is that the US is involved and Obama administration is lying.
"The obvious anser and most likely is that the US is involved"
In which case the Mossad would invite Yossi Melman in for a friendly chat and then give him all the information he needs to pin these recent assassinations on the CIA.
So I await that story in Haaretz, tho' I must admit I won't be holding my breath.
Look, David, your argument defies logic i.e. if the CIA *was* involved in this effort then the more logical way to deflect suspicion away from themselves is to muddy the water, not to point a finger at an ally who would certainly try and point the finger back at them.
So they'd be much more likely to plant stories declaring that "we didn't do it, but we simply don't know if it was the Israelis, or the Saudis, or some rogue Europeans".
ever since US invaded Iraq,it was just matter of time before the next on the list of Arab states for regime change was targetted.
US got a list of 7 countries from Israel that they wanted regime changes made in about 20 years ago.
The list was Iraq,Iran, Saudi Arabia,Yemen,Libya,Somalia,Syria,not necessarily in that order,but as we can see Saudia Araba,i and Libya were coaxed into being on our side,but the rest remain opopsed to Israeli US mid east policies and the treatment of Palestinians,,so that leaves them to be targetted for one reason or another.Anyone thinks that the US is about a two state solution is living in a dream,as long as the US is the mediator,the Plaestinians are in a lose lose situtation,and Isreal will be allowed tol keep on doing what they are doing ,and building more and more illegal settlements until there is no land left for a two state solution,thats when,and only then will Israel decide it is time to get serious.
The world is on the fast train to the ultimate end
I don’t think Washington has qualms about assassination but there may be some long-term concern over how the US public would respond if it becomes too obvious. The victim, after all, was not a terrorist but a young family man. It would be tacky to be caught up in something like that; Russia and China would shake their heads. The Russian UN envoy recently referred to the ‘US philosophy of confrontation’, and it is desirable for Washington to appear more statesmanlike.
Number 5 looks possible but I suspect the fragmentation is less within administration than the US/Israel relationship itself. US policy makers lose flexibility and authority when Israel acts unilaterally. Israel is threatening to play the bull in the proverbial and this must be deeply disconcerting since the US will feel obliged to support them whatever they let out of the box..How, for instance, might the Egyptian people react? Many already feel Israel is less than an asset to much US policy and this could be real proof of it.
From a broader perspective, the growing influence of Israeli zealots must also be nagging the administration see LINK to Spiegal since they are moving ever closer to being Israeli decision makers and the kind of weaponry they could then control would make Iran look like a pussy cat.
CUT IT OUT. You think the American people are going to support you egging Iran into a war?
Obama won praise from liberals over his exit of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would he jump right into another war guaranteed to be more deadly and dangerous than either of the first two? Israel needs to take a chill pill and these talks in Turkey need to happen at once.
Israel is working on an unfounded assumption
Israel is blythly assuming that this is how it will pan out:
1) Israel attacks Iran
2) Iran strikes back at All And Sundry
3) Prompting the USA to jump in on Israel's side
4) Leading to the prompt destruction of 's entire infrustructure.
Here is what the Americans fear most of all.....
1) Israel attacks Iran
2) Iran strikes back at All And Sundry
3) The USA prepares to jump into the fray on Israel's side
4) Only to be told by Russia/China that if *you* jump in on Israel's side then *we'll* jump in on Iran's side.
5) Leading to both the USA and Russia/China looking on from the sidelines while Israel and Iran go at it toe-to-toe.
In the first scenario the outcome is a no-brainer i.e. Iran loses, and big time
But in the latter scenario who would give odds on Israel?
Not me, I suspect they'd come out looking like Ol' Leroy Brown.
You know, going into that fight like the Baddest Man in the Whole Damn Town, and coming out lookin' like a jigsaw puzzle wit' a couple' pieces missin'...
As for the killing of the scientist itself, there is little reason to doubt that Israel was responsible. That's what senior US officials told TIME magazine on 1/13, and there is no need to mistrust what they say. The unusually strident tone of the US repudiation of the assassination may be aimed at another intended audience: the allies whom it is trying to line up for the new draconian sanction regime against the Iranian Central Bank.
The Obama Administration does not like the ridiculous Kirk-Menendez Amendment, but had little choice but to swallow hard and sign the DAA to which it was attached. Now that it is stuck with it, it has to try to finesse Iran policy under new constraints without alienating its allies, who cannot exactly be pleased with US laws that carry extraterritorial penalties.
Probably the Obama Admin. is telling US allies behind the scenes that they really have to move towards isolating Iran economically to prevent an Israeli attack, which they portray as getting closer and closer. If it seems like the US is doing covert operations in Iran, alongside Israel, which may lead to war in any case, that would take much of the wind out of the sails of that argument.
Iran may be making the same calculation, as it is trying both the highlight alleged US involvement in this terrorist act and to re-open negotiations on the nuclear issue; the latter, of course, being aimed to buy time and divide the US from its allies.
It is doubtful that the Obama people are senseless enough to actually seek "regime change" in Iran at this point, which would further de-stablize the Middle East in an election year; risking a spike in the oil price and negative economic repercussions for the President's hopes for re-election. It is difficult to imagine a good replacement regime for their purposes.The Iranian opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, has actually attacked Ahmedinejad for being too soft on the nuclear issue (cf. ECONOMIST 14 Jan. 2012, Lexington Column, p.32) ; and hopefully the Marxist-Islamist-terrorist cult MEK is out of the running. Though it has largely carried on Bush foreign policies, it is useful to remember, and a blessing to be counted, that the Obama Administration is not the Bush Administration.
At the same time, it is equally doubtful that they are seeking a political settlement with Iran, of the kind which the latter offered and the Bush Admin. rejected in 2003. Any realistic deal would be treated as "surrender and appeasement" by the Republicans. The President would also risk alienating the pro-Israel donor community, which is massively important.
The US invasion of Iraq had the ironic result of boosting Iran's cache in the region; and important allies like Saudi Arabia are alarmed that the US disengagement from Iraq will leave them exposed. SA will view Iran as heavily involved in Bahrain based on past history, whether this is true or not now. They didn't like what they saw as America's disowning of the "loyal" Hosni Mubarak, and may have doubts about its commitment to regional "defense" now. Drumming up pressure against Iran is a way for the US to help manage this important relationship. This, and US domestic political considerations, do far more to explain the peculiar timing of the new anti-Iranian onslaught than does, say, the IAEA report on Iran released last November. This did not say anything new and did not contradict the 2007 US National Intelligence Assessment, which concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons programme back in 2003.
The surprising communication snafus pointed out by the author may have more to do with the lack of any clear policy focus and the volubility of low-ranking officials than with any elaborate calculation of political ends and means. But like it or not, the Obama Administration and the US Congress have created an atmosphere where another devastating war could easily break out. They are playing along with the State of Israel: a spoiled brat country, and a racist one, which is no real danger from Iran and is completely undeserving of our support.
Making sense of it all is easy.....
Just go back to last week's comment from Russia i.e. that Israel is pushing the USA towards war with Iran.
There's your answer, right there.
Both Israel and the USA has spent the last few years working under this assumption:
Regardless of wether it's
a) Israel, or
b) the USA, or
c) Israel and the USA
that beats up on Iran, there will be no interference from anyone else.
Iran will stand alone, and the only question then is how much force is required to make the Mullahs bend the knee.
The Russians have just told the Americans that this assumption is unwarranted i.e. if the USA jumps in *with* Israel then either
1) Russia, or
2) China, or
3) Russia and China
will jump right in and fight alongside the Iranians.
The Americans have received that message loud and clear, because they ain't stooopid.
After all, they remember what happened in 1950 when McArthur drove his troops up to the Yalu River in the blythe assumption that the Russians and the Chinese wouldn't do anything about it.
But the Israelis?
They are unwilling to take off their blinkers.
The flurry of American activity is now directed towards making those zionists see reason.
Good luck to 'em, but I don't give much for their chances.
After all, you'd have to scrawl your message on a 120mm armour-piecing tank shell if you wanted to get it through Netanyahu's thick skull, and even then there's a good chance of a ricochet.
The tap dancing coming out of DC would be priceless save for the fact that we have a black President. Far too politically incorrect...
You are all working under unfounded assumptions
Its pretty easy to blame Israel, since most of you are pre-disposed to do that as a matter of course even on subjects completely unrelated to them. Most of the comments here are more slinging slogans and spurious remarks about Israel but not actually looking at what little facts exist here.
But from an operational and commonsense standpoint such claims are much more dubious.
The ability for Israel to even bring in an assassination team into the country can't be all that great considering:
-Iran is not exactly the most open to foreign visitors;
-has draconian security apparatus already jumpy from local agitators;
-The targets who would be receiving some form of protection by the government;
Plus their ability to go undetected for any lengthy period of time would be severely limited. Maintaining such high profile activities in such hostile conditions is daunting for any intelligence agency. If they were going on for this long, my guess is they would have caught by now. Iranian security forces can't be THAT incompetent.
"2) Such assasinations give the Iranian government cover to conduct its own assassinations campaign, which winnows the number of scientists the United States can recruit for its own intelligence;"
This one actually makes a lot more sense. The US was pretty obvious about its activities in luring nuclear scientists away for cash. These mysterious incidents only seem to be taking out the scientists, not their work. The victims have not exactly been high level operators in the nuclear program. Iranian hit teams would have unfettered access to the scientists. Plus there is the propaganda coup of blaming the Great Satan and Little Satan over these.
But its not like most of you are going to be thinking critically about the situation anyway. It plays to your hatred of Israel, that's enough for some people, I guess.
"This one actually makes a lot more sense."
You are, indeed, the only person on Planet Earth who finds that argument in any way persuasive.
"Iranian hit teams would have unfettered access to the scientists."
Agreed. But what is the point in killing them, SPOOD?
You appear to be arguing this:
These scientists may have been r.e.l.u.c.t.a.n.t. to continue working for the Iranian nuclear program, and so the Iranians took the opportunity to kill them *so* *that* Iran could
a) pretend that these scientists were working hard
b) pretend that this is why Israel killed them.
Honestly, that makes no sense at all, precisely because doing that is sending Exactly The Wrong Message to those that remain i.e.
a) the more dilligent you are in your work then
b) the greater the risk of being killed by Mossad.
Why would the Iranians want to send that message to their own scientists?
not sure but I think I agree with number 5: The Obama administration is fragmented pro and contra. But sure that Israel still control America and Mr. Obama.
Israel takes existential threats seriously, as Iran (like Hitler and Nassar) has made in order to puff up it's Shia leadership in the Moslem world. The US embargo on the IRANIAN CENTRAL BANK (a defacto Embargo of OIL) is a WARNING to Europe, Japan, Korea, and China to start developing other energy sources. The clock is now ticking and Iran knows it. So the real issue is not 'will Israel strike Iran'! The issue is 'how will Iran respond to losing oil customers'? The MAIN BENEFACTOR in all this? RUSSIA, holding an OIL TOURNIQUET over the NATO ALLIANCE.
If the US and Israel continue to play the assassin's game, retaliation could come to the US. Iranians have lived in the US since the fall of the Shah, and the younger generation and the children born in the US may not remember the Shah and the reasons for leaving Iran. US and Israeli attacks on the fatherland may excite responses. Furthermore, Iran produces oil, so attacks in the US may focus on the US oil and gas infrastructure on which the US economy and military both depend. US oil refineries, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, drilling rigs, and pumping rigs would be easy targets. Rockets and mortars are easy to make. Tracer rounds, for igniting tanker trucks and other targets, are easy to make. Thermite and its igniter, napalm, and other incendiaries are easy to make, and the materials are readily available without the need for identification if people make their own powders and can use simple tools. The point is that the US should be careful about support for Israel because Israel's actions may cause people from other countries in the US to strike the US.
There are three things you may do:
1) Do nothing (apart from speeches and rhetoric) and allow Iran to develop and stock nuclear weapons. Look at Pakistan for an idea how that would turn out.
2) Wage war. That means anything from preventive strikes to full scale war. All things involving bombing however is war. Once you go this way you can't return. Regretting this decision will not roll back the war, it simply will make you lose it. This will result in Iran obtaining a nuclear device and use it.
3) The assassin's game, as you put it. Better yet, considering Stuxnet, let us call this "undercover sabotage action". That way you may at the very least postpone option 2 without having to live with option 1.
Please keep in mind that the people playing this game are preventing war.
O, if you think Iran can be talked out of making a bomb you must consider Iran the good guys. I, and quite an astonishing amount of the Persians living there, find that highly disputable.
Daniel, perhaps this is an undercover joint US-Israeli action. The Iranians now will start to purge their ranks, which undoubtedly leads to extreme paranoid climate of fear. That may very well hamper the deployment of the nuclear bomb. It could even lead to a cascade of arrests which with loyal scientists as collateral damage.
Who knows, is this all part of the game
"It could even lead to a cascade of arrests which with loyal scientists as collateral damage." should read:
It could even lead to a cascade of arrests of loyal scientists as collateral damage, thus hampering the development even more.
Iran produces oil, so attacks in the US may focus on the US oil and gas infrastructure on which the US economy and military homeremodelingblog both depend. US oil refineries, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, drilling rigs, and pumping rigs would be easy targets. Rockets and mortars are easy to make. Tracer rounds, for igniting tanker trucks and other targets, are easy to make.
US policy makers lose flexibility and authority when Israel acts unilaterally. Israel is bet365 threatening to play the bull in the proverbial and this must be deeply disconcerting since the US will feel obliged to support them whatever they let out of the box..How, for instance, might the Egyptian people react? Many already feel Israel is less than an asset to much US policy and this could be real proof of it.
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(31)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE