Where did Friedman get his information from on Iran's converted rockets? The Qaher he is referring to (aka S-75/SA-2) is hardly a threat worth mentioning in light of Hezbollah's current inventory of approximately 150,000 rockets. And where is he getting this 30-meter number? Even the Houthis admit that the Qaher-M2's CEP ranges from 10 to 50 meters (http://www.yemenpress.org/yemen/yemens-qaher-missile-hits-saudi-military... and that should be taken with a large grain of salt. Hezbollah's guided Fateh-110s represent a far more potent military threat. Friedman's inaccurate assessment of the military capabilities of each side makes me wonder what else he got wrong.
2
It may well benefit the global community if Iran and Israel did go to war.
Here's my guess, and it's no more than that, as to what the Iranian government wants. First, it wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East. Every Persian regime since Cyrus the Great has tried to control Mesopotamia, Syria and the Mediterranean coast if it was strong enough, fighting the Greeks, Rome, Byzantium and the Ottomans with varying success. Linked to that, the ayatollahs want to make Shiism the dominant sect of Islam, take over the Holy Places, and revenge the deaths of Ali and Hussein at Sunni hands. Being the strongest and most effective Muslim enemy of Israel serves the first purpose directly and indirectly furthers the second by subverting the Sunni regimes in SA, the UAE, and Bahrain.
3
AND IF THE JEWS?
renewed some of their post-war genius and that of their greatest orthodox rabbis and became seekers of peace?
1
In 2007-2012 Mossad killed several Iranian nuclear physicist in Tehran and abroad, the STUX warm destroyed hundreds of Iranian centrifuges.
Iranians answered with several failed attacks on Israelis abroad.
Israeli has killed many Iranian advisors in Syria.
These are acts of war but Iranians had no capability to respond because of Israeli nukes.
The nuclear control treaty with Iran can push out and limit Iranians nuclear weapons capabilities.
So, we have a low intensity war going on since decades and some crazy ones dream about a hot one.
It's really not certain how the Israeli's "asymmetric warfare military doctrine" will the will workout with Syria (Israeli response is out of proportion to attack).
Does the Crazy one understand that for peace one needs to negotiate withy the enemies and make concession ?
2
One way of making Hezbollah and Iran "obsolete" in this situation would be for Israel to seriously engage in talks with the Palestinians and find a way that satisfies both sides. Israel does not want any two state solution as emphasized many times by Netanyahu. Both sides have unrealistic demands. Israel wants to expand and the Palestinians want to have their own country. So both sides will be used for proxy wars. Instead it is time to work together and realize that a one state solution could actually satisfy both peoples.
1
It actually may be somewhat less complicated than Friedman thinks. Israel has purchased and just declared operational the "Adir" a highly modified version of the F-35 stealth fighter. Russia maintains, almost certainly falsely, that their advanced Integrated air defense network can track and shoot down American made stealth fighters. Suffice it to say, they can't. Russia will almost certainly not expose its relative fecklessness either to its own citizens or potential purchasers of its IADS, as military sales are now one of only two major Russian exports.
As for Iran; well, it's a harder call. But without any effective means of countering Israeli airpower, it's hard to see the upside, unless domestic politics means the solidarity caused by an external war is worth the massive internal disruption and destruction of large swaths of valuable infrastructure. It's a tough call to make, but it is at least feasible... Russia's direct involvement is not. Emperor Putin has no clothes (and he knows it).
Historically Israel has sought to warn Arab governments explicitly what it's redlines were. In 1967 for example it made it very clear in advance to Egypt (then the UAR or United Arab republic because it also included Syria) that it would do whatever is necessary to end the stranglehold over its Eilat (Gulf of Aqaba) port. And of course it delivered.
Now Israel has published an Op Ed piece by a Brigadier General Ronen Manelis in Arabic in Arab media that was published throughput the Arab world, letting Lebanon know that it will not tolerate Iranian Missile factories.
The Middle East being what it is I expect this warning to be ignored by Israel's neighbors.
As Friedman points out everyone is now armed to the teeth and then some. But unless Israel has some secret plan any war now will result in many lives lost in both Israel and the Lebanon. We are talking about missiles that generally will hit their intended targets. Any military action could easily spiral out of control.
It is unfortunate that we have an American president who spends his time watching cable news instead of what's happening on his beat. And a depleted state department. This is the kind of action that Trump likes--watch out America! Watch out Bibi and Israel.
2
The sooner Israel takes out Iran the better. At the moment Israel has a huge military advantage without having to resort to its nukes, because its military is state of the art 2020, and Iran's after three decades of sanctions is mostly state of the art 1990. However this could change, if sanctions continue to ease up. It takes a few years between purchasing an advanced arms system and having it fully operational. Israel cannot afford to allow Iran to wage proxy wars against it with impunity, fighting Israel to the last Lebanese while Iran remains unscathed and gradually builds up its military capabilities. That ain't gonna fly.
A war with Iran is inevitable, because the Iranian regime cannot achieve its ultimate goal without one. The ultimate goal of the Iranian regime is to overturn over 1,300 years of Sunni domination of Islam, and see the Shiite flags waving over Mecca and Medina. The only way they can ever hope to achieve the required level of legitimacy within the Sunni world for this would be to achieve the one thing the Sunni world has singularly failed to do, destroy Israel. As long as this regime rules Iran, war is inevitable. Since Israel is never going to have an advantage bigger than it has now, the sooner the better. Sorry peace lovers, but this is an inevitable existential fight to the death, since the world is not big enough for both the current regime and Israel to coexist in.
5
Can Crazy Still Keep the Peace Between Israel and Iran?
[ Peace is only and always kept by the sane, by the determined, diplomatic peace-makers. ]
1
What the hell is Iran doing over here, helping to snuff out democracy in Lebanon and any hope for power-sharing in Syria, and now posing a direct threat to Israel?
-- Thomas Friedman
[ This is not a true question but rather a slanted question that answers itself and terrifyingly so. I do not agree with the slant. ]
2
Someone please tell me how many nuclear weapons poor, innocent Israel has. And how many has Iran? Hmmmm Guess that says a lot. I forgot I was not supposed to talk about the discrepancy.
7
It does say a lot. Mainly that Israel has had to fight multiple defensive wars and is surrounded by neighbors sworn to its destruction. There's your discrepancy.
3
G Boyd-
Israel is a tiny country the size of New Jersey with a population of about 7 million. Iran is a huge country with a population of about 80 million. Iranian leaders have said on numerous occasions that 1 nuclear bomb will destroy Israel and Iran can withstand an Israeli counterattack. They are willing to be martyrs - with the benefits they believe go
To martyrs - and consider it the right thing to do for Muslims worldwide. The concept of Mutual assured destruction does not apply.
4
Israel tries hard to avoid enemy civilian deaths.
For example,
"... a study published by the United Nations showed "that the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in Gaza was by far the lowest in any asymmetric conflict in the history of warfare."
Nukes kill civilians so Israel would be extremely reluctant to use nukes.
So Israel's enemies attack Israel because they believe that Israel won't use its nukes.
3
here is no right in the middle east, only wrong.
Israel is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-confession, multi-lingual liberal democracy producing innovations in science, technology & medicine.
That's a good thing.
5
I thought - before reading this article - that the reference to crazy was somehow in relation to Donald Tump.
The only leader more crazy than Tump is Kim of North Korea.
How come you don't mention that the U.S. is a big time Israel backer, but you are able to list everyone backing Syria and Hesbollah ?
6
Why can't the bloggers just admit they can't wait for a real shooting war to break out between Israel and Iran. This Cold Peace between these two avowed enemies is most unnerving.
3
Friedman, generally a pretty fair mid-east reporter, mentioned Iran and Russia as major players supporting Israeli's enemies, but failed to mention the U.S. as enablers of Israeli aggression and misdeeds.
BTW--I wonder how Israel could afford those Dolphin type subs? I wonder if the American taxpayer have anything to do with it?
Just saying.
6
Major Gen George Keegan, Jr., former head of USAF Intelligence, said, "Between 1974 and 1990, Israel received $18.3 billion in US military grants. During the same period Israel provided the US with $50 - 80 billion in intelligence, research and development, and Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the US."
4
Nice to see Friedman advocating insanity as diplomacy. Great job, Tom. You forgot to squeeze in communicate, collaborate and thrive or some balony about quantum AI.
3
Anytime an article such as Mr. Friedman's is written, it provokes readers who have both hatred for Israel as well as Jews to put forth their opinions of why Israel is mistreating their neighbors.
Israel's only objective is to live in peace. Instead, it constantly has to be ready for an attack by any of its neighbors who have only one objective, to obliterate the State of Israel.
Were Israel to be left alone and allowed to pursue its rightful place as an independent, free state, it would benefit the people of all the other states in the region.
Israel would not be a threat to any country, were it not constantly being threatened. Their stated goal is to "destroy Israel". Never once has Israel uttered the same words about another country.
Making peace in the region is the only solution that makes any sense. This constant state of "near war", sponsored by every one its neighbors will not work. It is in the interest of everyone to make every effort to insure that war does not break out, yet again!.
Why are these people who constantly speak out against Israel so intent on seeing Israel destroyed? Do they think that without Israel the region will live blissfully with one another?
Were the United States in a similar situation to that of Israel, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to avoid extinction? I'm guessing you would.
And if Israel were not a Jewish state, would you care as much? I'm guessing you wouldn't.
20
Thank you, Mr. Friedman. A recognition that Israel wants to survive. Now can you take this thought a bit further? This mess, which you have clearly described, is far more important to the peace of the world than the never ending suffering of the Palestinian people. 80 years of UN committees that serve no other group of refugees, economies mostly dependent on international aid (for which read American aid; Arab nations have been either unable or unwilling to help) and a Western world increasingly charmed by their violence (how cunning! Throwing an old Jew in a wheelchair over the rail of a cruise ship! Let's write an opera). Can I ask you to consider the thought that a long time media supporter of the Palestinians such as yourself should tell the Palestinian leaders that they are going to have to learn to deal with the actual problems of their own populations? Garbage collection and working sewer systems are a lot less sexy than terror tunnels, but ask them to consider the option; although, considering that the leaders of Gaza recently announced that they couldn't possibly accept clean water from the Jews of Israel, I'm not sanguine that blunt arguments even from someone like yourself will get through to the Palestinian leadership.
13
Lebanon never invaded Israel. Lebanon didn't have to invade Israel--Hezbollah surrogates shelled cities and villages in Northern Israel from Southern Lebanon. Of course there were no objections from Lebanon about these attacks against their hated enemy to the South.
11
Maybe solving the Palestinian issue would lead to the resolution of Israel's other issues in the area, and maybe not. We don't know, because Israel is indeed satisfied with the current status quo which it sees as the best situation that they can get away with at minimal cost.
3
Mr. Friedman,
Nice report. Except that you miss the obvious which is that Hezbollah's
100,000 missiles are kept and can be launched from deep underground
and they are impervious from IDF air attacks.
6
We failed to engage with Iran 30 years ago over a insignificant incident, the occupation of embassy in Tehran and the holding of American Embassy personnel. Let me point out, in the end they all returned safely.
So, from Iran's viewpoint, the American / Israeli lead embargo was illegal. The meddling in their internal politics was illegal and the American support for Saddam Hussein was by United Nations standards, was illegal.
So apparently Iran should just turned the other cheek.\? I'm sure they are thinking it's payback time. What is the United States doing in the Persian Gulf?
4
Confusion are us!
Logic would suggest that Trump 's removal from office would be the starting point for getting back into peace talks. There is nothing to do while his backward methods are leading us.
2
Iran and Israel are both relatively educated societies. So did Syria used to be. And if these guys can't find anything better than playing who's crazier to keep war at bay, then no one in the middle east is smart enough to avoid this end game. As this region completely runs out of oil and water, it will be a nasty, fiery end.
It never ends. Actually, this is a quote from a local psychopath and career criminal with whom I had the misfortune of becoming acquainted. (He does solve some neighborhood-specific problems that reveal the impotentce of the police and justice system.)
Anyway, I am somehow reminded of the abortion pro-and-against camps if only in terms of irreconcilabilty.
Finally, another remembrance is a line from a Buffalo Springfield song. "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong." That reminds me my time is passing but the same old same old continues.
Let us not forget that the reason why Iran is in a position to control Lebanon and Syria is that President Obama handed them $150 Billion and unleashed their economy.
They were in a box and Obama, along with strategic thinker Ben Rhodes, decided to let them out.
Brilliant move.
7
"That should be a source of optimism. But, alas, there are just too many chances for miscalculation on this crowded 3-D chessboard to be sanguine that the next 12 years will be as quiet as the last 12." true true. Yet Israel and America keep whipping up an imaginary frenzy that they are at the point of destruction with the imaginary mighty Iran. We keep saying that we are so much smarter than other nations, yet we still try to settle things by a bullet, even though we can see killing has not and does not resolve anything.
2
Israel wants peace on its own terms. It is a sad notion that for as long as there are no adversaries capable of challenging its superiority, there won't be any real compromise for peace.
3
It is not Israel who has a charter that calls for the destruction of its neighbors. It is not Israel who refused to accept the UN’s
Recommendation to share the land. And it is not Israel who initiated several wars with the expressed goal of annihilating another country. If Israel did not have a military superiority, she’d have been destroyed decades ago by neighbors who have claimed for decades that there is no place in the Middle East for a Jewish nation. Apparently, you’d have preferred that.
3
I afraid Thomas greatly underestimates the chance of war.
Crazy can keep shaky balance between Israel/Iran and Hezbollah, but they are only part of the big picture. There are second tier players like ISIS and al-Nursa who happy to provoke big war in order to fill vacuum after. These groups are financed from outside and have little remorse toward locals.
4
It seems the pivotal player is Russia. Iran is under economic pressure at home and the regime may have to curtail its expeditionary expenses to survive - unless it sees an opportunity for a decisive victory. But that would require Russian assistance. How will US respond?
Thank Goodness that Trump is president and Obama is OUT!
6
You miss a great deal and so does Trump.
Obama's beef with Israel was based on two facts
1) Netanyahu and the Israeli Foreign policy establishment kept on saying
they were onboard with a two-state solution when in every action it is obvious they are not. The problem is that Israel cannot give up the West Bank and Israeli society has not faced what that means itself. Obama tried to hold Netanyahu's feet to the fire which was a reasonable thing to do on this issue.
2) Netanyahu is lying about Israel's capacity or even the Unites States capacity to take out Hamas, Hezbollah or, especially, Iran by air strikes. Their assets are now in deep tunnels in the basement rock of their respective territories and are totally impervious to air attacks which means also bunker busters and PROBABLY nuclear weapons as well.
The only way to take them out is by a land invasion and, by the way, that is
the same problem with North Korea. Their stuff is dug into mountains.
You have to take it out by hand.
Netanyahu tried to spook Obama into invading Iran with his speech to Congress. Israel lost not a single person in getting rid of Saddam and Netanyahu was trying to arrange that outcome again.
How many American lives would be lost going into Iranian tunnels?
We will see just how thankful you will be when Trump gets serious
about military action towards North Korea.
We will see then if under Trump the Pentagon will even tell us how
many US lives are being lost.
3
Iran calls America the Great Satan so Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but a threat to the USA as well.
2
Dear Mr. Friedman,
The CIA predicts the next conflict with Hezbollah , Israeli will lose land.
Did you omit that by design.
3
Here are some facts about the relationship between Isreal and Russia. Isreal has had a military pact with Russia while taking $3 billion to $4 billion a year from US (and while Isreal has a GDP per capita greater than that of Spain or Italy). Israel has jointly sold weapons systems with Russia to India and to China. Isreal sold drones, developed with US tax dollars, multiple times to Russia/Putin. Russia has used those drones in both Ukraine, where it has illegally annexed land (like Isreal does) and in Syria (to support the butcher Assad who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people). Israel did not condemn Russian invasion and annexation in Ukraine - did not support US and European condemnation or sanctions of Russia. Now, some opinions (not facts like above): Netanyahu and company are steadily destroying Israeli democratic institutions - press, independent judiciary, and delegitimizing its military and security establishments as deep state to form an ethnocentric, theocratic, hyper-nationalistic, hatred for the other and those citizens who dare oppose them, security/fear by exaggerating and perpetuating threats, serve the billionaire class, cult of personality kleptocracy. It’s the Trump model. It’s the Putin model. That’s the Isreal-Russia-US connection.
11
Israel was ranked 29 out of 167 on The Economist's Democracy Index.
That's better than Belgium, Greece, Cyprus & at least a dozen other European countries.
2
Sounds like juggling hand grenades. With the pins pulled.
Lebanon should lose it's membership in the UN since it no longer is an independent country. It is occupied territory with Iran and Hezbollah being the occupiers.
10
Hezbollah is a Lebanese organization. They're not foreign occupiers. Any Iranians in Lebanon are there at the invitation of the Lebanese government. So they aren't occupiers either. The only recent occupiers of Lebanon have been the Israelis. They specialize in being tyrannical occupiers.
I am disappointed that Thomas Friedman would discuss military actions that resulted in the death of civilian non-combatants by using a pop cultural framework better used in tabloid journalism to depict spats between celebrities and entertainers rather than to discuss the consequences of military actions between opposing forces. Whether or not one agrees with a state’s tactical decision, one should not underestimate its real cost, and by using the tropes of pop culture in this easy, breezy way, Friedman is doing exactly that.
5
perhaps he is merely trying to show what utter disregard arab leaders have for their people, that they would expose civilian non-combatants to such measures in the first place. where is your outrage at the criminals running hamas and hezbollah?
15
You missed the point entirely. This is exactly how children play in the sandbox; pop culture is exactly where we find ourselves. Who can "out-crazy" who? There is no sanity or clear thinking in any of this. It is indeed a very serpentine chess game, and the more leaders behave like children, the more dangerous is the outcome of the game. Seems to me pop cultural metaphors are apt.
1
And our role? I seem to recall Kissinger implying, obliquely, that
Israel matters most as "our" military base at the strategic, eastern end of the Med. Such realpolitik.
4
I am no fan of what Israel has been doing by way of land-grab creep through settlement building, etc. However, the stuff in Friedman's column is the stuff of very survival, it seems to me. That is a different story altogether.
In 2006 I lived in the Middle East and saw the agony of my Lebanese friends who had family in the war zone. However, I do not know what more Israel could to to protect itself. I'd like to hear some viable alternatives from those criticizing Mr. Friedman here.
9
Israel has every right to patrol their borders especially with Lebanon and Syria as long as they know that they are going to be attacked by either the Syrian military or Hezbollah. As long as there are groups out to destroy them from there, they have every right to do so. I won't be surprised if other countries are doing the same on this yet at the same time so many condemn Israel for doing the same. Keep in mind that there are numerous US soldiers by the Mexican borders just to look anyone sneaking in from there yet nobody considers that out of paranoia. If anyone is talking about how Israel must return the Golan Heights to Syria, the reason why they aren't doing it now is mainly because that region features a high hill that overlooks everything to the west of the Sea of Galilee making a good place for either the Syrian military or Hezbollah to launch an attack. One suggestion was that Israel keeps that part so that they won't have to fear it should the ever give it back, while another was to just make the Golan Heights an entire demilitarize zone so that neither side can attack from there. The reason for one of those two is that Israelis won't ever have fear another attack again. Just like Hamas, Hezbollah needs to be stopped once and for all, and nothing that group does makes them heroic by any means otherwise you would have to be a terrorist sympathizer to say so.
14
As long as the Arabs squabble amongst themselves Israel can take care of itself. They have their greatest force since King David. Iran is another story but it's worth noting they aren't Arabs. Don't be surprised if there is a Russian - Iranian -Israeli understanding now that the Trumpster stirred the pot.
2
How is Iran financing it's operations in Syria and Lebanon? Released funds, formerly sequestered, from the Iran nuclear deal?
9
I guess the question is, how many Iranian lives is Tehran willing to lose in picking a fight with Israel? Thousands, ten of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions?
Israel will not be willing to lose in a war with Iran and it's proxies so will push the number up to the millions, if it feels that it's very existence is in question. Hope the Ayatollah realizes that things won't be pretty for him or his country if it ever comes to that.
9
Trump's son-in-law has been working on the Ultimate Deal in the Middle East which should solve this unsolvable problem, along with making our government run more efficiently like real estate deals, the opioid crisis, and other top secret projects that will make America great again.
4
Since the only deal Obama ever made was to let Iran develop nuclear weapons, how could anyone donworse?
3
Bring the Romans back in. They're the only ones who knew how to manage this area.
2
Let's see, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, occupied Beirut, and stood by while Christian zealots massacred thousands of Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, yet Friedman calls Hezbollah a terrorist organization? War is hell and labeling people trying to defend their homeland as terrorists simply shows our historical ignorance.
65
The original reason why Israel sided with the Phalangalists was because they though by having a common enemy, they could be allies. Unfortunately, they learned that the hard way and didn't realize their true nature. When that was discovered, they cut ties with that group altogether. Nevertheless, that didn't excuse the fact that Palestinian and Muslim extremists had killed the Lebanese president just for being Christian and pro-Israel. It was that even that allowed Syria to have a puppet government in Lebanon especially lead by Hezbollah.
10
The Folks of Lebanon cleaned up the mess there. Now they have to clean out hezbollah.
3
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 after the PLO took over and destabilized Southern Lebanon, having been kicked out of Jordan for violently destabilizing that country first. The PLO used Lebanon for years as a base from which to invade Israel and massacre its civilians, including the Coastal Road massacre of 1978, in which PLO terrorists hijacked a bus and murdered 38 civilians, including 13 children, and injuring 71 others. The Palestinians also launched rocket attacks across the border at Israeli civilian centers.
In addition to using Southern Lebanon as a base from which to launch terrorist attacks into Israel, the PLO also established control of the region by terrorizing the local Christian population, and there were numerous waves of massacres and retaliatory massacres between the Muslim and Christian populations in the South. The massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christians at Sabra and Shatila was itself likely in part retaliation for the gruesome massacre of 582 Christians at Damour, along with the total expulsion of the town's Christian population and replacement by a Muslim population, at least according to Tom Friedman writing at the time. The Israelis may have failed to stop the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, but they were hardly the instigators. The Christian population had plenty of motivation, with Christian children who had reportedly been raped, tortured and dismembered by PLO led forces.
The Israelis were certainly not the monsters in that conflict.
8
Friedman asks “why the hell is Iran...now posing a direct threat to Israel?” But Iran does not threaten Israel, it’s quite the other way around. Iran has every right to ally with its Shiite neighbors and assist Lebanon in gaining adequate defenses against the threat of Israeli attack.
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 1996, 2006 and illegally occupied southern Lebanon in 1982 - 2000. Lebanon has never invaded Israel.
Friedman frames 'crazy' with a false equivalence. Neither Iran nor Hezbollah shows the slightest signs of crazy. As Friedman himself acknowledges, Nasrallah learned a hard lesson in 2006 when he miscalculated the consequences of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. That led to Israel's inflicting massive destruction on Lebanon's infrastructure and civilian lives, which no Lebanese wants to see repeated. Instead they seek sufficient defenses to deter Israel from ever doing that again. See Nasrallah's speeches online. The Lebanese are confident they now have adequate defenses or are very close to it.
Meanwhile one has the strong sense that Israel's leadership is chomping at the bit to restore their own sense of dominance in the region, which is slowly slipping away. They seem desperate to stop this trend. Their subjection of the Palestinians seems potentially less permanent and more precarious to the extent that Hezbollah and Iran, supporters of the Palestinians, remain strong.
I agree 100% with Friedman's expectation of another conflagration.
0751 ET
36
The statement: "Israel's leadership is chomping at the bit to restore their own sense of dominance in the region." is only partially accurate. Yes, the Israelis are thinking of starting a regional war, but for a different reason.
In reality, Israel's dominance of the region is closely tied to the US dominance of the region, which has become practically non-existent under Mr. Trump. Today, it is Russia that dominates the region. If in doubt, ask with whom the Turks discussed their recent incursion into Syria, before starting their campaign. Sadly, it was not the WH. In fact it was Mr. Trump who called President Erdoğan to discuss the recent incursion and not the other way around.
The Israelis are eager to start a war against Iran, because with Mr. Trump in the WH, they think they have a historical opportunity. They believe they will have Mr. Trump's complete support in such a war. They have convinced themselves that the US will enter into the war on their behalf, once Iran responds militarily to bombing of its cities or facilities.
I think Israelis are mistaken. First, when it comes to wars, Mr. Trump does not have an independent view; his views are those of his generals. And, his generals are reluctant to risk American lives for Israel. Second, Mr. Trump has promised his base that he will not start another war in ME. And, he badly needs his base in the next election. So, if Israel is to start a war, it has to be wait for Mr. Trump's re-election!
4
“What the hell is Iran doing over there”? A better question is what the hell are we doing over there; for decades we have ignored our needs at home as we have squandered our resources on the affairs of the Middle East. The time is long overdue for Israel to fight its own battles or compromise and make peace: without the threat of America’s military might at their beck and call Israel’s right wing faction would out of necessity make peace and aid in rebuilding the Middle East, Israel along with Iran and Lebanon have enough dynamic, educated young people who could easily step into the vacuum left by both the ayatollahs and the Likud party if given the opportunity and the right wing of both Israel and Iran were to step aside. The first step must be for America to disengage from this untenable situation and get our own house in order. Unfortunately with the appointment of pro settlement Ambassador Friedman and the declaration of Jerusalem as Israels Capital no change is on the horizon. Instead Trump emphasizes rebuilding our nuclear arsenal in his state of the union. It appears he and both Friedman’s are reading from the same script.
60
If we stopped aid to Israel, the Republicans would give that money to the super rich in the form of tax cuts. Meanwhile, all that aid comes right back to the US because all that money is spent buying weapons from American Defense companies putting thousands of Americans to work.
7
M1945: Good point.
2
I think a good part of that money comes back to the US in the form of donation to those running for the Congress. That explains why the Congress is such a strong supporter of Israel.
1
What the hell Iran is doing over there? The answer is: The same what the hell America is doing over there.
23
Israel is no threat to Iran, but Iran seems committed to being the hero of the Islamic world by eliminating the Jewish State. Israel won't allow that to happen. Those caught up in the battleground get injured or killed, as did the citizens of Dresden, Nagasaki etc. I'm glad Trump seems to get it. A regime change in Iran seems the best case scenario
22
No one is invading or bombing Israel but Israel feels totally justified in invading or bombing anyone they want to. Israel is a very great threat to the area. A regime change in Israel would be a great scenario.
10
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq all attacked Israel in 1948 & have refused to sign a peace treaty. They are technically still at war with Israel. Hezbollah is threatening to destroy Israel. Iran is threatening to destroy Israel. Israel understandably doesn't want its enemies getting weapons.
10
Let the slaughter of the innocents begin.
Question: Where is Master Jared in all of this?
18
Any Syrian actions against Israel are justifiable as long as Israel retains control over the Syrian Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally annexed.
23
Syria has forfeited any claim to the Golan Heights because for years it fired at Israeli farmers from the Heights. Israel offered to return the Heights in return for a peace treaty, but Syria demanded that the border be moved southward thereby expanding Syria.
8
m1945 -- Not true. Syria demanded only that Israel give back all of what it had taken. Israel wanted to keep some of the key water resources coming off the Golan. That is what broke down those talks, the last few parts that were key to the water supply.
7
For decades Israel has encroached on Syrian territory,and bombed Syrian sites and killed Syrians and justified these crimes on the flimsy pretext that Syrians pose a threat to Israel. Israel has no right to judge who has forfeited claims to Syrian lands.
6
How is it possible to write an article omitting Trump and Kushner's participation in adding an iron to the fire in the conflict? Kushner's relationship with Netanyahu has been personal since his childhood. Trump promoted cheers from his base, Evangelicals, by declaring Jerusalem the capital and his intention to relocate the American Embassy there despite our European allies recognizing that would interfere with any peace progress.
19
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem doesn't actually interfere with any peace process except by giving the Palestinians another excuse for not signing a peace treaty.
14
Translation: there is no leadership (sounds hypocritical, coming from an American). Everyone is playing chess, looking for ways to take advantage of the next stop. No one is playing chess -- having an end in sight and figuring out how to get there (hopefully that end is peace).
There may be enough corruption in the Netanyahu regime for the electorate to end it (and do not overlook the money made by his friends when the nuclear submarines were purchased). We will see if he's replaced by another fanatic or someone with a feasible plan for peace. Iran may be on a path towards returning to the secular giant it once was. Lebanon, the prepetual victim whether it be the Ottomons, the French, the British, hopefully will find another path.
15
Lebanon attacked Israel in 1948 & still refuses to sign a peace treaty.
Lebanon is an aggressor, not a victim.
12
In 1947, the scholars at Al-Azhar University (The highest authority in Sunni Islam.) declared holy war to return Palestine to Islamic rule. Therefore, as long as most Palestinians are devout Muslims (89% of Palestinian Muslims want sharia law.) and as long as the Jewish State controls even one square inch of land, peace is impossible.
6
I do keep reading works that attempt to explain the human urge and capacity to employ its enormous intelligence on purposeful efforts to kill one another. In just this small area in the middle east we have enormous amounts of money and intelligence that could be used to invent new technologies, build houses and schools, and create new businesses. Instead all our human intelligence in this region is consumed with how best to kill each other.
8
Did Mr. Friedman skip why Iran wants to destroy Israel on purpose, or assumes by now everyone knows. Well, reading some comments below, it seems some folks still believe Iran is "afraid" of Israel. Really. But, this is precisely part of the craziness. President Obama did understand Iran's motives, and correctly or not, assumed the joint plan/nuclear deal will deter Iran long enough until either that government rethinks its goals, is ousted, or future Administrations will have to revise it. However, Obama didn't plan on Iran's continued missile development or pushing their way further onto Israel's border, with ever more lethal, precise missiles.
Okay folks, so you still think Israel is threatening the likes of Iran? Ignore reality at your own peril. And never mind the missiles paraded in Tehran that have imprinted on them they are set to destroy Israel. They make no secret of their intentions.
24
Iran has all the missiles then, right?
Actually, there's another country there that
a) has far more weapons that has far more weapons than Iran
b) is also the only country in that region has repeatedly bombed its neighbors Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon)
c) illegally has nuclear weapons
d) kidnapped one of its own citizens from the sovereign territory of another country for exposing this illegality
e) imprisoned him for a decade in solitary confinement
f) has put it out there that it has more than once contemplated using nuclear weapons when not under any nuclear attack
3
Since when is possession of nuclear weapons illegal?
4
How about the missiles in Israel and the bombing in Iran by Israel?
I hope Thomas Friedman's article is being read by all sides and translated into the language of all combatants. His analysis is vivid and outstanding. B
2
In addition to King Abdullah's fear of an Iranian-controlled Shi'ite crescent linking Iran to the Mediterranean through a Syrian client state (or colony, perhaps) and its proxy Hezbollah controlled Lebanon, there is a bit more to the puzzle that has nothing to do with Israel. Looking South, Iran appears to have its eyes on Bahrain (with it’s Shi'a majority under Sunni rule) and Saudi Arabia's adjacent eastern province (with its Shi’a majority and most of the Saudi oil). A takeover there might sufficiently destabilize oil prices that both Iran and Russia would greatly benefit to the detriment of the West.
As for Israel, we all know what would happen should it respond to a Hezbollah missile attack. WE have already seen this movie in Gaza. Hezbollah’s hiding behind Lebanese civilians would be excused if not outright ignored, Israeli civilian losses would be minimized or blamed on Israel which would then be accused of war crimes while The NY Times resurrects its "casualty score card" whose exaggerated numbers of Arab "civilian" casualties would come directly from Hezbollah albeit laundered through compliant UN observer said or anti-Israel NGOs to give a temporary veneer of credibility. You cannot help but notice that absence of any equivalent Times "scorecard" for the US in Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi involvement in Yemen.
Israel will defend itself by itself as it always has - and in marked contrast to Arab countries - but it is a side issue in this particular drama.
16
“We want to keep the temporary status quo forever, because everything else looks worse.” You quote an Israeli soldier thus and it is understandable. So is the opposition to Israel's annexation of territory and expanded 'permanent' settlements. It seems logical not to allow these to become established facts by resisting them. Incidentally no-one "does crazy" as well as the Israelis. Their example may have taught others
16
"no-one "does crazy" as well as the Israelis. "
You might get an argument from the suicide bombers, if they were still around to talk about it. Other leading contenders are the geniuses at Hamas who periodically start wars with Israel, provoking retaliation that causes great suffering for the people of Gaza. I could go on & on.
1
American media continues to cover the Middle East in an Israel centric fashion. Everything is viewed through the lens of Israeli interests and no attention is paid to the legitimate security concerns of the other countries in the region. Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel’s invasion of South Lebanon. We’re it not for Hezbollah, South Lebanon would’ve been full of Israeli settlers, just like the adjacent Golan Heights. Israel has long coveted the water resources of the Lebanese Litani river.
Israel does not have the military capability to carry out air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. They are well dispersed and the facility in Fordow is buried under a mountain. Had Israel been able to strike, they would’ve done so 10 years ago. Iran is playing its cards right and establishing proxies in Syria and Lebanon in order to make any attack against it very costly for Israel.
20
Israel used to have good relations with Iran. Israel bought Iranian oil. Iran bought Israeli products. What changed was that Iran had a revolution. Since then, for religious reasons, Iran wants to destroy Israel.
10
“Were it not for Hezbollah, south Lebanon would’ve been full of Israeli settlers”. An outright lie. The only reason that Israel ever entered south Lebanon was only because Hezbollah was firing missiles into Israel’s northern towns. There has never been any Israeli desire to take over Lebanese territory, outside of protecting its border from Hezbollah missiles. Shame on you for creating your own ‘facts’.
6
The root case of Israel invasion back in 1982, that Lebanon allowed PLO to stage attacks on Israel. As far as I know, after Israel left South Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah overran Security Belt cleansing many villages...
3
Well reasoned and accurate.....and scary.
3
"As one Israeli military officer on the Syrian-Israel border remarked to me, 'We want to keep the temporary status quo forever, because everything else looks worse.'”
An understandable and pragmatic short-term motivation, akin to the Palestinian-Israeli stalemate, especially in the light of so many political and economic ricebowls being fed by the status quo. But "keeping the temporary status quo forever" is obviously short-sighted and unrealistic. And also very cynical and callous.
On another front, Friedman betrays his bias by neglecting to note the parallel mania of the Zionist settler movement in occupied and border lands. Selective and blinkered demonization is one of the biggest impediments to a lasting peace in the region.
49
There was no peace before the settlements, during the settlement freeze, or when settlements were removed from Gaza. They are only "one of the biggest impediments to peace" to those biased against Israel.
7
Nice job there getting a dig in at settlers, who live on land formerly occupied by Jordan, and before that by Britain, and before that by the Ottomans. But "Rocky" and his "recommend" admirers seem to think that Israel is the only country in history that should be repeatedly attacked and not allowed to take more land to build a buffer.
Those millions of us living on former Indian land are ill-placed to make those arguments.
3
As one Israeli military officer on the Syrian-Israel border remarked to me, “We want to keep the temporary status quo forever, because everything else looks worse.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does a two state solution ( where all sides live in peace and security ) look worse ? It doesn't, but that is the talk from radically right wing enthusiasts. ( in practice and punditry )
Everyone is in on a land grab to keep everyone else on edge with no gain.
8
You ask, "How does a two state solution ( where all sides live in peace and security ) look worse ?" It doesn't but it will never happen, Two states is no solution. The Arabs will never give up their pipe dreams of destroying Israel.
Kind of like asking, "What's so bad about me playing for the Yankees, getting paid 25mm per year and cavorting with models?" Nothing at all, but it will never happen.
1
In the past 30 years, Israel has annexed ZERO territory.
6
I thought Jared Kushner was going to straighten this all out.
5
Who does Mr. Friedman keep calling the terrorist organization Hezbollah, mercenaries? People in the comment section are mad that Israel defends itself against Hezbollah and Iranian proxies, which is also weird.
6
The most powerful WMD in the world is the "democracy" in the hands of neocons.
12
Since WWII, the fact of mutually assured destruction has prevented the end of mankind. In Washington, in Korea, and in the Middle East, we must hope, and do everything possible to ensure, that fact remains front-of-mind. The only way to a secure and lasting peace is for combative nations to recognize our shared interest in survival, and for all citizens to insist on leaders who truly stand on that. Otherwise, one of these powder kegs will inevitably explode, and when one does they all will. And no nation's interests will be served, and, despite apparent belief in some quarters to the contrary, none will survive. Mankind is at an existential crossroad - we can either recognize our common interests, or suffer our common fate.
4
Wow, Tom Friedman has actually pulled-off a fairly decent geopolitical analysis here of the present Syria/Israel/Iran/Hezbollah nexus in the southern Lebanon/Golan Heights region.
With Hezbollah sitting on well over 100,000 missiles and years of combat experience in Syria, if war comes it will be orders of magnitude greater than the 2006 Lebanon War, which was essentially a draw but costly for both sides. It will be interesting to see how Israel's technical wizardry counters the S-400 radars protecting Syrian/Lebanese airspace, and how the Iron Dome system performs against Hezbollah missiles.
One thing is certain, the buffer of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights has been crucial in protecting the Israeli heartland from the chaos in Syria. Those who would have traded the Golan Heights to Hafez al-Assad for a cold and ephemeral "peace" treaty would now be called shortsighted...at best.
53
How many missiles does Israel have?
How many nukes?
8
Interesting? Interesting to watch our proxy and Russia's proxy test superpower weaponry against these disposable others? That is not my definition of interesting.
Israel probably has well over 300 nuclear warheads, but I do not think the use of nukes would be very practical in southern Lebanon as much of the fallout would drift over the border into Israel. Nukes WOULD be useful against Iran. But Israel also has plenty of conventional bunker-buster bombs that would be practical in both Lebanon and Iran...and Syria.
Iran can’t attack Israel directly but does have surrogates who can. Israel can attack both the surrogates and Iran directly. The real question is whether the Mullahs will keep power after waging an unsuccessful war agaisnt Israel. That might be the price paid for the Mullah’s attack on Israel. No major nuclear power has yet been defeated and Israel reportedly is a major nuclear power.
7
When Sunni groups like ISIS or the Taliban bomb Shiite mosques in Afghanistan, Iran, etc., the world condemns the attacks and wonders how they can be stopped. However, when Iran marshalls Shiites in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon to fight ISIS, then some Americans question Iran's motives.
Some Americans also complain that Iran has too much power, but the Saudi military is killing and starving many Houthis (Shiites) in Yemen, and Iran can do little to stop them.
Given that Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, which resulted in a million dead, is it not possible that the Iranians have reasonable fears of having hostile neighbors and need to be able to defend themselves?
Israel made a point in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war by using its overwhelming military superiority to destroy civilian infrastructure (and civilians), as well as military targets. As a result, Israel lost its allies in Lebanon.
However, that war and the Israeli Gaza Strip wars have made Hamas and Hezbollah careful not to provoke Israel. The residents of the Gaza Strip hate the Israeli embargo, but they know that fighting Israel is like committing suicide. They realize they have no power to force, influence or persuade Israel to remove the embargo.
The question now is whether and when Netanyahu will provoke war to win another election.
35
You don't get it. Israel is the tiny, beleaguered country surrounded by these multiple enemies. If they are smart and weapons smart, you chastise them for having no choice but to defend themselves? You think Netanyahu is that stupid, or crazy, to head into war for election purposes? Maybe that is crazier than anti-Israel. Try rethinking that.
11
I pray for peace for Israelis, and all of Israel's neighbours. Israel has had to fight in the past. However now the Palestinian Authority has full security cooperation with Israel and Hamas has said they have no desire to fight with Israel, despite the continuing blockade.
Israel has pursued a strategy of divide and conquer. They have done everything they could to keep Fatah and Hamas apart and they encourage conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, especially between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Israel could be a stabilizing force in (and blessing to) the region if it signed a peace agreement with all of its neighbours, including the Palestinians. However, Netanyahu and his cabinet want to continue expanding settlements. They feel that since they have the most powerful military in the region, that a long-term peace agreement is not important.
2
"Israel is the tiny, beleaguered country surrounded by these multiple enemies."
No, Israel is the regional dominant nuclear power.
3
How one describes a problem, and looks for a solution, depends greatly on the question asked. In the U.S., the question is always: How can Israel be safe? The question is never: How can Iran be safe? The U.S. gives billions of dollars worth of weapons to Iran's biggest enemy in the area, the Saudis who are certainly less of a democracy than Iran and in a power struggle with it. Israel debates about a first strike against Iran. The U.S. aided Sadaam Hussein in the Iraqi war on Iran that led to a loss of a million Iranian lives. And, oh yea, there was that overthrow of a democratically elected secular government with the help of the U.S. in 1953- paving the way for the Ayatollahs.
If the London bookies took bets on it- who knows, maybe they do- I am sure the odds of Iran attacking Israel would be much smaller than for Israel attacking Iran.
This is not a defense of the Mullahs, their moral squads, the Revolutionary Guards, etc. Iran has a long way to go before it can be called a democracy (though not as far as our pals, the Saudis). But in terms of resolving tensions in the Middle East, the question should be how can Iran and Israel (and Lebanon, and...) be safe.
68
Nonsensical rhetoric. It was the ayatollahs regime who abruptly stopped traditionally good relationship between Iran and Israel. It is the ayatollahs regime who prays and acts day and night for annihilating Israel. Peter Wolf, just convince the Shiite supremacists to change their approach. Iran will be able to focus on its real enemies. That will make Hezbollah redundant and see miracle, Lebanon will be safe again.
25
Not as simple as that. The Israelis were more than happy to resupply the ayatollah's regime with arms and intel during the Iran - Iraq war in 1981. Israel does have it's legitimate security interests in keeping its homeland safe, but instead the likud government and their own far right extremists in the Bennett / Bibi camp are not exactly the tough doves of the Rabin / Peres ilk. The fact of the matter is that both Israel and Iran are not pure good/evil comic book villains - they're both nations with legit security concerns and a long history is less than liberal and honorable behavior - in other words, they're nations acting in their own interests. Robert Baier's Iran analysis over the years is instructive - in the end despite their rhetoric the Iranians are Israelis are both rational actors, Friedman confirms that in this op-ed.
4
Geda, you don't seem to have read, or understood, my post. To your point, about the "traditionally good relationship between Iran and Israel" was not between Israel and the Iranian people, but between Israel and the Shah, a hated dictator propped up by the U.S. and eventually overthrown with the predictable backlash against Israel. Now Israel's pals are Trump, the dictator of Egypt and the supreme monarch of Saudi Arabia.
I did not say that Israel has no reason to be concerned about it's security. But Iranian rhetoric of destroying Israel is empty talk, and do you really think that Iran is more likely to launch an attack on Israel than Israel on Iran?
The point is, if we are going to talk about security threats, we should talk about the security threats of all parties to the conflict. Many Iranians dislike the religious regime there, but they are united in opposition to- and fear of- external attacks by either Israel or the U.S.
3
The Israelis certainly have a lot of motivation to develop anti-missile defense systems and lots of opportunities to practice with them.
In recent years, they have developed short range (Iron Dome), intermediate range (David's Sling) and long range (Arrow) anti-missile defense systems.
These defensive systems could also be quite useful in other hot spots around the world.
The only practical solution to the rapidly advancing North Korea ICBM threat is a reliable capability to shoot it down in the boost stage or destroy it on the pad.
The Israelis might just be the ones to lead the effort to make the world a little safer. They were credited with the development of part of the Stuxnet cyber weapon that took out thousands of Iranian centrifuges.
42
This opinion piece was brought to you by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel.
116
And yours was sponsored by whom?
10
"An Israeli soldier looking toward Syria from the Golan Heights" "AT THE SYRIAN BORDER, Golan Heights"
I am not sure that Mr. Friedman even noticed what he was writing. If one asks Mr. Assad, the Golan Heights is Syrian. If you ask the UN, the Golan Heights is Syrian. If you ask J Street, the Golan Heights is Syrian. Israel is the occupier, having conquered it in 1967, after decades of Syrian shelling from the Heights into Galilee in Israel. Rumor has it that Ehud Barak and Hafaz Assad were 99% close to a deal to return them to Syria and Mr. Assad balked over a few hundred meters along the Sea of Galilee.
Can one imagine that? ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah and the whole kit and caboodle on the the Golan Heights, overlooking Galilee.
Mr. Friedman is correct. This is not Gaza in which Israel is restrained by possible collateral civilian casualty. This is the Apocalypse. No holds barred. 2006 ugly is minor compared to what might happen, and the repercussions of all that.
So one might ask two questions: 1. What in the world is Iran doing on Israel's border and why does the world allow it 2. Does anybody sane think that Israel can ever return the Golan Heights (of its own volition) to any of its mortal enemies?
Will deterrence work and/or the status quo work? It would help to get the Iranians and their proxies out of Syria.
65
Putin and Netanyahu are two intelligent, well-informed and ruthless leaders. I imagine that their meetings are electric. I say this ruefully for we have a President who is "like very smart" and has been snookered by them both repeatedly.
55
Like Sen Graham says "to get along with Trump you just have to praise him constantly", shower him with complements. Trump is a simple man, corrupt and mean, but simple. He is a pushover for strong, amoral despots. Putin controls him with Miller's help.
6
Mr. Friedman's TripAdvisor review for the Golan Heights:
Come for the serene beauty of the landscape and stay for the excitement of a multiplayer game of chicken where the most effective diplomatic approach to conflict resolution is to engage in rounds of "You think that was crazy? Let me show you crazy".
Yikes indeed.
11
"What the hell is Iran doing over here, helping to snuff out democracy in Lebanon and any hope for power-sharing in Syria, and now posing a direct threat to Israel?"
For many years, Israel threatened to attack Iran, and both Dubya and Obama were very worried they'd do it. So of course Iran needed some deterrent, and this is it. It is not really a very good deterrent, but it is all they've been able to do.
They are not "snuffing out democracy" in Lebanon. That was Saudi Arabia that tried to force resignation of the Prime Minister. The Shiites are represented, and Israel hates that.
Power-sharing in Syria? That was pure regime change, meant to subdue Syria. It was done with jihadi crazies, ISIS and al Qaeda, that even the US had to put down. There were no "moderates" and the US looked hard to find some.
This view is the purest Israeli propaganda, nothing more. Friedman got a tour from the Israeli military, and then wrote what his handlers told him.
105
Since the foundation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Israel has been referred to as the Little Satan. Iran has continuously pledged its support for the destruction of Israel. Through its proxy Hezbollah, Iran has been responsible for mass terror attacks in Lebanon and Argentina which have killed and maimed hundreds. In the past several years, Iran (via the Revolutionary Guard Corps) has pursued a foreign policy of military adventurism, growing to dominate the politics of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.
Israel wanted to attack Iran's nuclear facilities for the same reason it attacked those of Iraq in 1981 and those of Syria in 2007: an Iranian bomb would be an unacceptable security threat. For those who point to Israel's nuclear weapons and cry hypocrisy, Israel's bombs quite clearly function as a necessary deterrent against enemy attack, given that Israel is surrounded by much larger countries committed to its destruction. An Iranian bomb would simply be a tool to coerce neighbors and attain regional hegemony.
Iran must stop allocating most of its resources to the military and foreign conflicts, and should instead invest them at home in its own economy. This past month, thousands of Iranians took to the streets in protest of the regime's putting adventurism over the well being of its own citizens. For the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East, Iran should heed its citizens voices.
53
Israel threatened to attack Iran because Iran engaged in a program of developing nuclear weapons, while at the same time the leader of Iran publicly threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Iran is seemingly obsessed with destroying the state of Israel. Israel, on the other hand, has never expressed a similar sentiment and simply wants not to be destroyed. This should be rather obvious to anyone who is not bent on finding excuses to hate Israel.
If Iran were not actively hostile and belligerent, then Israel would have no reason to threaten it. In fact, Israel had relatively good relations with Iran prior to the time that the Iranians turned hostile. No doubt they would be happy to have good relations again. The hostility in this relationship is entirely one sided and would end immediately if the Iranians were not obsessed with the destruction of a country a thousand miles away with which it should have no actual dispute.
As for the idea that Israel somehow hates that Shiites are represented in Lebanon, this is also absurd. Israel has no reason to hate if anyone is represented in Lebanon, as long as those people are not actively trying to destroy Israel.
9
Whatever else you might accuse Friedman of being, Israeli lackey would not make it on any credible list. Since your argument relies on that being true, a reasonable reader might just conclude that it is your argument that is wrong.
7
The litany of players in this 3D chess game makes your head spin and yet all have been allies, and sometimes, foes in America's efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. Unfortunately, with the preemptive moves regarding Jerusalem, we can now add America to that list of foes .But, If crazy is what is needed to keep the peace, we have become the primary exporter of that peculiar armament.
16
I have never been to the Middle East so all of my limited knowledge is based upon what I have read or seen on the tube. But unlike another commentator here I do not yearn for a Middle East where a Westerner can buy a cheap Persian rug. Iran in particular has a well educated class of younger people who are not interested in sitting in a desert hut weaving a knotted rug for some American who feels entitled and indifferent to the basic needs of others. What I think is crazy is to be inserting ourselves in the ongoing conflict of all the players. We have our own crazy to deal with in the WH and Congress. We have tried over decades to take the lead in dialogue that ultimately seems to fail. We have launched failed wars in the name of building democracies. I'll suggest another crazy idea, just have America arm all of them with a limited nuclear arsenal similar to Israel and Pakistan. Then they could all stare at each other much as did the US and the Soviet Union. If they blow each other up it will be at their own hand.
9
To me, this seems like rolling a set of dice hoping that the dreaded numbers don't come up. The problem of course is not just statistics (as the dice keep getting thrown, the probability for the dreaded event increases), but one where any number of radicals would love to taint the dice so that the dreaded event happens. And the unpredictable radicals are lurking all around the playing table in Russia, Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. So, how long before just one of them destabilizes the situation? All it will take is one stupid bomb -- or one that's GPS-enabled that inflicts mass casualties.
What could possibly go wrong?
7
It’s a legitimate question when one party set about developing nuclear bombs claiming that their purpose was to incinerate Israel, and the other bombed the bejeezus out of the development facility to halt development.
Personally, I’m not pro-Iran. What the hell are they doing there? Why, they’re trying to lay the infrastructure for a declaration of caliphate for all Muslims, what ISIS didn’t have the hand-size to accomplish despite all the severed heads in the deserts. Oh, for the days when the biggest problem the world had with Iran was not getting cheated TOO badly on the cost of a Persian rug.
Of course, Iran’s claim to that caliphate is as dicey as that of ISIS – they contend for it with Saudi Arabia and Turkey at least, possibly even Egypt if Egyptians can ever get their acts together; and THOSE countries represent the dominant Sunnis.
The “kinetic dialogue” can work, I think, until Iran suffers a truly devastating setback that puts dreams of caliphate in serious danger – for whatever reason. Their severe environmental problems could devastate their economy, their political problems could escalate to threaten the religious power-base, the Sunnis could put serious money behind countering Iran’s nuclear threat, collectively firing off an arms race that could bankrupt Iran -- other things could happen. If the ayatollahs, who are the source for caliphate-lust, see their world, dreams and power disintegrating, crazy may no longer be enough as they become fatally crazIER.
5
As John Lennon would put it (if he were talking to you), "Whatever gets you through the night, it's all right."
4
William:
I don't frequent séances.
1
"Why, they’re trying to lay the infrastructure for a declaration of caliphate for all Muslims." Where do you get that, Richard? Modern Iran has never talked about restoring any Caliphate. The Shi'ites have a dream the Mahdi will return, but since the establishment of the modern Iranian state. Restoration of the Caliphate is a Sunni dream.
8
Brilliantly delineated
A space prone to be detonated
Will sense prevail
If so we hail
Trump's absence, our World's most hated.
24
Mr. Eisenberg:
Your poetry leave much to be desired as does your sardonic attitude.
15