seycyrus said:
Unfortunately, world history has shown what can happen when words are just dismissed as "bully" talk.
I guess you refer to Hitler and Chamberlain. The difference is, Hitler didn't think that he was going to level Germany when he started WWII. The Japanese didn't think they'd get some nukes on their head when they bombed Pearl Habor. However, Israel as well as Iran (assuming they both have nuclear weapons one day) *know* that if they nuke the other, they are going to be fried themselves, one way or another. It is *this* situation which has to prevail: that each side knows very well that he will be leveled when he pushes the button. I think you can search through history, this has never happened, that leaders wage a war of which they know beforehand that it will lead to total destruction of their own country. True, it happened to Germany and Japan, but their leaders thought it wouldn't.
Compound this with the fact that we are faced with zealots who think that straping a vest on and blowing up a wedding is a perfectly legitimate sense of action.
Well, playing with nukes is strapping on *yourself* with the vest, instead of sending a few lunatics doing it. In other words, you know that you will blow up your own country, even if you succeed in blowing up the other.
Vanesch, I do not believe that representatives of these countries have proclaimed that they will wipe another country off the map. Have they or any other governments made any statements that rise to this level?
Words are only to impress someone. What counts are genuine intentions, and deeds.
Israel does not have the luxury to believe that Iran is bluffing.
Of course it has that luxury. It's just words.
The Cuban missile crisis would never have been averted if it was just assumed that both sides were bluffing. Negotiations were made (even if they were behind the door) not because both sides were willing to call the other guys bluff, but because both sides believed the other sides intentions were as stated.
It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.
Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Conventionally, they could do it. My father, who worked as a military for NATO, has participated in studies that showed that it would take them less than a week to run over Europe if they put all their means to it in the 70ies. Western Europe has to thank its freedom in the second half of the 20ieth century to the threat of nuclear missiles. Now, I agree that it was a dangerous game to play, but it paid off. You win some, you lose some.
I think that a similar effect might play in the ME.
Do we want to reach *that* level again? I use the word *we* in a global sense. Certainly the US will not be the one that has to decide if anyone is bluffing.
The guys making *that* call will be Israel and Iran.
That is why this is a serious issue, the fact that two most important players (Iran and Israel) might *not* be joking.
I'm 100% sure that they are. Well, 99.999%. In fact, the most dangerous moment is *now*, when Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear supremacy while it still had it - in the same way as the years 46-beginning '50 were the most dangerous ones, because the US was hesitating whether to use its temporary nuclear supremacy to bomb the Soviet Union.
Best would be if all the major players in the area would have a reasonable arsenal of nukes. Them staring at each other, watching every move, playing poker games, and, 50 years later, decide to call it off and disarm together.
This issue did not suddenly popped up in the last 8 years. It has evolved to the present crisis, in my opinion because we have in the past ignored it, or decided that both sides were bluffing.
The fact's are as follows.
A) Iran has stated that it will destroy Israel.
B) Isael has stated that it will not give Iran the opportunity to do so.
Maybe we should take them at their word and work on changing these two facts?
Well, the best thing to do is to just let them face their own words and decisions, and they will realize themselves (just as the US and the Soviet Union did) that they are before an impossible choice - no matter how big-mouthed they were before.
Of course, the game is not without a risk. It can turn wrong. They can blow themselves up. That's a risk to run. So be it. It's the price to pay for "cold" in a cold war.
