Of Chess and Baseball - David Habakkuk

 A point which puzzles me. In the thread on Jeffrey Goldberg’s ‘Atlantic’ piece, not only the Colonel, but also F.B. Ali and Phil Girald, suggested that if Israel attacked Iran, the conflict would automatically escalate so that the United States would be drawn in. And all three, obviously, are people whose assessments carry very great weight. However, Lysander suggested -- as he has in earlier threads -- that the sensible strategy for the Iranians would be to attempt to prevent the United States being drawn in, by limiting their response to a withdrawal from the NPT, and that they might well do this.According to Steve Clemons, Ali Larijani once told him that Iranians play chess, and the Americans baseball – and ‘chess beats baseball.’ And reading Goldberg's article, I did find myself wondering on what basis Israeli intelligence believed that the Iranians would necessarily respond to an Israeli strike by ordering Hezbollah to fire rockets at Israeli cities – precisely because the clever ‘chess’ move might be to instruct Hezbollah to refrain from attacking, unless attacked.The thrust of the comments of the former Israeli air-force

generals and strategists appeared to be that even if air-force resources were not needed to counter such Hezbollah strikes, Israel could not make repeated sorties against Iran -- and, as the Colonel has repeatedly pointed out, was unlikely greatly to set back the Iranian programme.So could it not make sense for the Iranians, in the wake of a strike by Israel, simply to suggest that the country has definitively proved itself a ‘rogue state’, but that the Islamic Republic was not a ‘rogue state’, and although it had the means to respond, was not going to do so?The Israelis might be happy to set the Middle East aflame and bring the world economy down in ruins, the Iranians could insist, but conscious of its responsibilities not only to its own people and the peoples of the Middle East, but to the world community, the Islamic Republic would not do so – and was counting on President Obama to show similar restraint.Doing this might not only enable Tehran to seize the moral high ground – but also, if the United States could be persuaded not to involve itself in the conflict, leave the Israeli government with the worst of both worlds. By portraying the Iranian nuclear programme as the road to a new Auschwitz, it has courted the risk of gravely exacerbating precisely the flight of the best and brightest which – as Goldberg’s article brings out – is seen by Israeli leaders as the central threat to the survival of the country. If, having portrayed the programme in such apocalyptic terms, the Israeli government demonstrates that it is unable to do anything about it, it could be left with great difficulty explaining to the ‘best and brightest’ why they should stay in the country.Of course, it may be totally naive to think that the Iranians could respond in a restrained way. But this could be for a number of different reasons, which have rather different implications. It could be that the potential escalatory dynamics are such that, even if the Iranians wanted to control these, it is clear in advance that this is not possible -- in if any objective is clearly unachievable, there is no point in trying to achieve it. It could also be that the Iranian leadership do not actually believe they have an interest in containing escalation.But even if American military power may not – as Gwynne Dyer suggests – be adequate permanently to do more than set back the Iranian nuclear programme without the use of nuclear weapons, it can certainly achieve cataclysmic destruction. So if the Iranian leadership do assess that there are no good reasons for them to try to avoid escalation, I would be curious as to what kind of calculations the Iranian leadership would be making: and also, whether they are rational ones.But then, perhaps gut emotion would simply take over in the wake of an Israeli attack, and Larijani’s image of the Iranians as chess players would turn out to be as disconnected from reality as the image of Israeli leaders as tough-minded ‘realist’ strategists has been shown to be.  David Habakkuk

Comments

[Medicine Man]

I'm not sure that I would lump Andrew Sullivan in with all of the usual suspects. While it is true that he was a shameless proponent of the Iraq invasion he has since adjusted his opinion and had the grace to make a mea culpa about his earlier credulity.

Do you think we're likely to see a big PR blitz prior to any action against Iran?

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Andrew Sullivan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

[lally]

IMO, the Jackals made a serious error when they decided to attack *anti-semite* Andrew Sullivan on the basis of some critical commentary about Israel.

As a result, Sullivan dove into a subject he hadn't really focused on in the past and quickly came up to speed.

Woe unto Them.

Here Sullivan gives notice of his forthcoming response to Goldberg:

And there is no subject as grave as the one Jeffrey has grappled with or that this country will have to confront in the months and years ahead.

And that is why I intend to rebut his arguments and evidence and worldview as powerfully and effectively as I can soon. And why I am not going to rush in prematurely.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/about-israels-next-attack-and-the-atlantic.html

[walrus]

"Bolton says the Israelis have till Aug 21st to make their attack:"

Bolton is wildly misrepresenting the contribution the Bushehr reactor could possible make to a weapons program, which is precisely zero.

That is because the plutonium produced in its reactor is the wrong isotope of Plutonium to make a bomb from.

Weapons grade Plutonium is produced by irradiating Uranium for around Forty days only. It is not conceivable to do this in a pressurised light water power reactor such as Busheher.

Technical details here:

http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel/

This is where the Israeli story starts to break down. One suspects that the Russians have decided that it is not in their interest for Israel to attack Iran. They are thus forcing their hand, and it's too early.

[Fred]

CK,

The Atlantic story sounds familiar - buy the paper, fire or fire by corporate relocation, the staff, hire some under qualified true believers, live off the reputation for awhile. It's been destroying newspapers in the US for a decade or more.

[DH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan

Pass.

[J]

Colonel,

Some in Israel see Russia making chess moves of their own regarding potential Israeli strikes on Iran.

Russian S-300s in Abkhazia block possible Israeli air route to Iran

http://www.debka.com/article/8968/

[Clifford Kiracofe]

Fred,

yes indeed and Col. Lang's point "the country is being destroyed" is directly on target. The Republic is being destroyed by an array of forces. This is an old story, nonetheless the pace is quickening. Pogo theory obtains.

We do note that the rather exotic Andrew Sullivan is a foreign national presuming to insinuate himself into our national debate on foreign policy on matters of war and peace...

We do note he studied under the Straussian Harvey Mansfield at Harvard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Mansfield

[J]

Colonel,

Some are seeing an Israeli attack on Iran is in its final planning stages. And with President Obama sending no strong signals to the Tel Aviv bunch not to attack, the only group standing in the way is the hopeful sanity of DOD putting its foot down and saying Hell NO!

[J]

Seems that the Neocon writer Jeffrey Goldberg was an Israeli IDF prison guard at the Ketziot military prison camp during the First Intifada.

A Neocon Preps US for War with Iran By Ray McGovern

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/081210b.html

[confusedponderer]

Mr. Kiracofe,

The Israelis cannot effectively defend against chemical, IMO. Reaction time, gas mask issue, population density and so on.

Most cold war agents - starting with Sarin, Soman, Tabun (and their derivatives) and VX are easily absorbed through the skin. Skin agents like Lost-N or Lost-S also affect the skin. These 'classics' are the likeliest candidates for agents that Iran may, theoretically, use.

All contaminate terrain that cannot be easily passed without protective gear, even though in that respect the climate may perhaps favour Israel since the agents would dissolve faster than in European climate.

While Israel has given out gas masks to the civilian population - without a protective suit (like the NATO over-garment with activated coal) masks don't offer credible protection against modern chemical agents. My instructors told me, mask, schmask, that without the suits we'd be toast, and that atropine auto-injector 'pens' only offer an extent of protection in case of slight poisoning.

So yes, of course the use of chemical weapons against civilians (or any unprepared opponent) would be devastating. No argument there.

I just don't find the scenario credible. If Iran uses chemical weapons, they invite a nuclear response, and I think they know that very well.

Why would Iran need to use nuclear against Israel if chemical would do the trick quite well indeed?

Why use chemical weapons at all when Israeli apocalyptic rhetoric drives Jews from Israel already, without Iran having to expose itself?

From Israel's generals, intel officials oppose attack on Iran

Top Israeli intelligence officials and others responsible for policy toward Iran have long argued, in fact, that the kind of apocalyptic rhetoric that Netanyahu has embraced in recent years is self-defeating. Security correspondent Ronen Bergman reported in Yediot Ahronot, Israel’s most popular newspaper, in July 2009 that former chief of military intelligence Major General Aharon Zeevi Farkash said the Israeli public perception of the Iranian nuclear threat had been “distorted.” Farkash and other intelligence officials believe Iran’s main motive for seeking a nuclear weapons capability was not to threaten Israel but to “deter US intervention and efforts at regime change,” according to Bergman.

The use of blatantly distorted rhetoric about Iran as a threat to Israel – and Israeli intelligence officials’ disagreement with it – goes back to the early 1990s, when the Labour Party government in Israel began a campaign to portray Iran’s missile and nuclear programs as an “existential threat” to Israel, as Trita Parsi revealed in his 2007 book “Treacherous Alliance.” An internal Israeli inter-ministerial committee formed in 1994 to make recommendations on dealing with Iran concluded that Israeli rhetoric had been “self-defeating,” because it had actually made Iran more afraid of Israel, and more hostile toward it, Parsi writes. Ironically, it was Netanyahu who decided to stop using such rhetoric after becoming prime minister the first time in mid-1996. Mossad director of intelligence Uzi Arad convinced him that Israel had a choice between making itself Iran’s enemy or allowing Iran to focus on threats from other states.

Netanyahu even sought Kazakh and Russian mediation between Iran and Israel. But he reversed that policy when he became convinced that Tehran was seeking a rapprochement with Washington, which Israeli leaders feared would result in reduced US support for Israel, according to Parsi’s account. As a result, Netanyahu reverted to the extreme rhetoric of his predecessors.

[confusedponderer]

Mr. Kiracofe,
my apologies for the conclusion of my last post. Your scenario makes sense as an escalation scenario, what might happen after an Israeli attack, but I lost focus of that ...

For all the aforementioned reasons ...

Without an Israeli attack, I don't expect that Iran does anything directly against Israel. Time and Israeli rhetoric works in favour of Iran, for what must be Ahmedinejad's purposes.

Ahmedinejad is often and gleefully accused of wanting to wipe Israel off the map.

Well, I read he the actually said it will be 'erased from the page of time'. When that will be? Tomorrow? In a hundred years? Three hundred years? How long did the Crusader Kingdom last? If anything that suggests that he is in no hurry.

But then, much hay has been made about Ahmedinejad clinging to an apocalyptic view of Shia Islam. Anyone has something on that? I can't find it in my links.

[Thomas]

confusedponderer,

This is the cult:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojjatieh