Fred Thompson’s Crocodile Tears
The day after the Wall Street Journal explains why we should bomb Iran, the newest Republican candidate gives us a heart-rending recitation about “living in terror†in Israel.
He uses the same Republican buzzword as the Journal, the catchy “Islamofascism,†to lead him, after all this sympathy for the Israelis, to make a sharp right turn to his true destination:
“If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel ‘wiped off the map’…If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.â€
Or, all this implies, we will do it for them. With friends like Thompson and the Wall Street Journal, Israelis should recall the Bush Administration’s crocodile tears for the Kurds before the Iraq invasion and reevaluate that ancient question: Is this good or bad for the Jews?
Cross posted from my blog.
36 Responses to “Fred Thompson’s Crocodile Tears”
I think the Israelis are in a lose-lose situation over the issue of Iran.
If Iran gets a bomb, which they eventually will, the balance of power will shift away from Israel and they’ll be in less of a position to dictate the terms to their neighbors.
If Israel bombs Iran, they will likely provoke a regional war that could end up crippling the world economy and severely threatening Israel’s security.
If the United States bombs Iran for Israel, I think the results will largely be the same. Regional instability or war, increased terrorism and an economic crisis. Not to mention the body count.
See, I don’t see Iran as a real threat, even if they do get the bomb. All their words, all their yelling and screaming is just rhetoric to please the masses. Plus, if we start dealing with them as fellow humans, address their interests, and stop trying to bully them then they will become an ally rather than an enemy.
Chris, your list of possible scenarios seems to contain a hole. Specifically, you speculate about the effects of Israel bombing Iran and the U.S. bombing Iran “for Israel”, but you don’t analyze the possibility of Iran bombing Israel. Ashen points out (correctly, I think) that Ahmedinejad is pandering to the masses, but it is as least theoretically possible that he or someone like him could take the same pandering to the next level by what is called in international relations theory a “diversionary war”, eventually a nuclear one. What rights do you think Israel would have in such a situation and what would be the effects?
I see two possibilities with Iran: On the one hand, I agree that Ashen’s idea has a serious chance of working. Respect is a huge deal in both Arab and Persian cultures, so the nuclear hinting might be ameliorated by a change in approach in U.S. foreign policy. On the other hand, however, Ahmedinejad might actually mean what he is saying and might actually be among those who seek genocide against Israel.
So while I agree we should try to nurture the first possibility by engaging Iran more respectfully, I think we’d be fools if we didn’t at the same time plan and hedge for the possibility of the second.
I have a hard time believing that the Ayatollah (who runs the country, not Ahmedinejad) would consign his country and people to oblivion. That’s the likely outcome of a nuclear attack on Israel by Iran.
Certainly, them acquiring a nuclear weapon would raise the possibility exponentially, but does the possibility of an attack warrant a pre-emptive strike? No, I don’t think so.
Iran must surely realize that if they attack Israel, there would be immediate retaliation and the atomic war we all dread.
It seems to me Iran is not ready to sign its own death warrant.
Geez, Louise!
Does the left ever devote any similarly cynical prose to their own candidates? And you guys have the audacity to criticize Rupert Murdoch.
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372
During a Hanukkah dinner speech delivered in December 2005, hosted by Yeshiva University, Clinton prattled, “I held a series of meetings with Israeli officials [last summer], including the prime minister and the foreign minister and the head of the [Israel Defense Forces], to discuss such challenges we confront. In each of these meetings, we talked at length about the dire threat posed by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to Israel, but also to Europe and Russia. Just this week, the new president of Iran made further outrageous comments that attacked Israel’s right to exist that are simply beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability. During my meeting with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, I was reminded vividly of the threats that Israel faces every hour of every day. … It became even more clear how important it is for the United States to stand with Israel….”
Hypocrisy Alert:
Funny how these discussions never include the fact that Israeli has had its own nuculer . . . er, nuclear arms program practically since its creation in the late 1940s. This program has existed with the wink-wink-nod-nod agreement of certain Western nations and has resulted in the production of 60 or so combat-ready nuclear weapons.
The difference is, that I am 100% that Israel will only use it if absolutely necessary and in self defense.
Iran might use it offensively.
Casual-
So, what is your point? No one is happy with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Everyone is alarmed at the prostect.
Personally, I’m just not happy at the eagerness some display toward another pre-emptive war.
If war is what you want, war is what you’ll get, because you will lack the patience to try all other means to prevent it first.
Shaun,
I believe the mispronunciation you are looking for is “new-kler”!
Michael:
I too believe that Israel would not use nukes in a first-strike capacity.
The point is that insofar as nukes are concerned, Israel and Iran are judged differently.
Michael “Anti-Arab” van der Galien,
What’s your reasoning behind that?
No, Mr./Ms. Domajot (is that Latvian, by the way?)……..merely, the blogger (predictably, perhaps) chose a Fred Thompson-R quote to introduce this discussion when there are likely 8 Democratic candidates quotes (save for the 130 pound gentleman) that would have substantively conveyed the same “defense of Israel” theme.
I am policing for partisanship here, not “new-kler” proliferation.
MVDG and others eager for a war,
The consequences of a pre-emptive war on Iran would not be so good for Israel, either, Do you think the Muslim world would just look on in awe and admiration? Do you really think Israel would escape retribution?
With every call for war, the situation is made more dangerous, for us, for Israel, for the entire ME and the entire world. I have no doubt, that war is always on the table, but for heaven’s sake keep it in its proper place – that of a last resort.
There is nothing as dangerous as minds besotted by the glories of waging war.
Casual-
Clinton said “stand with Israel’, not “attack Iran for Israel.”
I don’t get your point, at all.
Is anyone disputing the threat Iran poses?
We’re just discussing the options in dealing with it.
You are too obsessed with partisanship for my taste.
What does my nationality have to do with it BTW?
I’ll give you an answer, if you explain the relevance.
Indeed, it could be horrible for the entire region.
You hear talk about the possibility of the violence in Ira
Indeed, it could be horrible for the entire region.
You hear talk about the possibility of the violence in Iraq spreading throughout the region if the US pulls out.
That would pale in comparison in my opinion to the consequences of a “pre-emptive” strike on Iran.
Not to mention that the odds of such a strike actually eliminating Iran’s nuclear program are nill.
Sorry for the double post.
True. That’s because “I am 100% that Israel will only use it if absolutely necessary and in self defense.
Iran might use it offensively.”
So, in essence they are not held to different standards at all. The question is, does one believe that it is possible that a country will use nukes offensively? If so: big nono.
Doma: I’d appreciate you not referring to me as someone eager for war. I encourage you to take that back immediately.
Michael,
You’re being awfully thin-skinned today, which is especially note-worthy considering you called quite a few people anti-Semites yesterday.
Michael:
Alas, history is not on your side. Israel has been held to different standards in innumerable instances in the nearly 60 years of its existence and that, for the most part, is fine with me because of (1.) its unique status, and (2.) the fact it is surrounded by nations ranging from sworn enemies to allies of convenience.
It is not fine with me, however, that Israel has been allowed to do what it bloody well wants when it comes to nukes.
I would defend Israel to the death. But just so you or others don’t think that I am a slavish Israel supporter, it is not fine with me that it has built settlements on land that does not belong to it, as well as other transgressions that also are off topic.
MVDG-
If I’ve micharacterized, I do apologize. But then, I would ask that you clarify your position. Your posts and comments have repeatedly encouraged a tough stance with Iran. So, if not war, what is it that you propose by way of being tough?
So, what exactly
What Chris said Michael, where are your appologies?
causual – Why did you take the article out of context. You didn’t include this paragraph.
I really like the title.
Hillary Clinton and the Israel Lobby
by Joshua Frank
domajot,
I think this is a fair cherrypick of Fred Thompson’s message….”If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.”
Nowhere does he say “attack Iran for Israel”, much less suggest a unilateral US action.
Rather, he IS only saying (IMO), if you were on the receiving end of 1300 missile strikes from the East and the guy on the West is blatantly avoiding non-proliferation compliance inspections, we shouldn’t be surprised if you start acting a little more irritated.
That “substance” is identical to Hillary Clinton’s “substance”. Indeed, it is not a partisan issue…..my point exactly.
Forget the translation of your nic……it was small talk.
Rudi, you lost me.
Doma: I have written on numerous occasions that I believe that it’s way too early for military action, that I do believe that if absolutely necessary one should be willing to use force, but that, as of yet, it is not “absolutely necessary.” I believe that there are different ways to prevent Iran from developing WMD’s, one of the requirements is to have an AEIE dedicated to making sure Iran doesn’t develop them, tougher sanctions (which have to be imposed), stopping the money flow, by supporting the Iranian opposition, etc. etc. etc.
You can look it all up. Go right ahead. You say that I am “eager for war,” you’d better back that claim up with some good old facts.
Pyst, I am not thinking about apologizing for that.
I am also not getting back into that argument. This is a different thread. If anyone wishes to communicate about yesterday, I suggest sending an e-mail.
Casual-
I See.
What I think is, however, that all this public talk of irritiation and possible retaliation is, in itself, driving up the stakes in the game.
If Iran fears an attack, it’s more likely to do something crazy.
Tough talk has just about ruined our chances on a diplomatic level with Iran. Iran reacts negatively to put-downs and threats, and we get the opposite of what we want.
Every time we speculate about Israel trying to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities, we increase the chances that Iran would try to do the same to Israel.
In other words, quiet please.
I wish people in the public eye would just stop talking about who’s going to attack whom, or at least use very, very careful words.
Domajot,
Well, in the end, we are not too far apart. Nothing appeals to me more than Teddy Roosevelt’s foreign policy saying.
However, politicians are going to be pushed (with some logical justification) to articulate positions, so the “non-quiet” is likely to get a little unavoidably worse in this regard for the next year.
To borrow a line from you, I suppose we could just say you’re “irrational” and that’s why you’re “eager for war.”
Michael, how does it feel to be subject to your own burden of proof?
MVDG-
We had an argument on your site concerning the British hostages. You were berating Blair for being a wimp, and the fact that the crises passed without major warfare seemed to matter not al all.
It’s true, you never used the word ‘war’, but you did go on about standing up to Iran and using ultimatums. So, what does standing up to Iran and issuuing ultimatums add up to?
There is no reason from past history to believe that threats would work with Iran.
I asked you then: If we say ‘or else’ and Iran chooses “else’, what then? You didn;t answer, handily avoiding the word ‘war’.
Avoiding the word, does not erase the implication, however.
Everybody has a last ditch war scenario up their sleeve, but it matters a great deal what it would take to trigger it. From your earlier posts, even though faithfully avoiding the ‘war’ word, you made it very clear that avoiding war the British way was not to your liking. How is the alternative not confrontation and war?
Now you are adding new layers, I’m happy to see, about inspections and such. So, perhaps you’ve moved the goalposts back.
BTW, “you’d better back that claim up with some good old facts.” sounds too much like the tone Bush would use with Iran.
The tone doesn’t sit well with me, either, but I’ve given my basis, nevertheless, just because I’m a reasonable person.
Domajot: well, I am happy that you can see through my rhetoric, my handy evasion of the word ‘war’.
I meant… what I wrote. It’s not more difficult than that. I believe that the Brits should have, with the Americans, set up a naval blockade. Pressure should have been put on Iran. The West should have united, threatening using force if necessary. If Iran would refuse to give in, I believe that force should have been used, indeed.
Nice of you to bring that episode, one of the most humiliating in modern British history, up by the way: it’s a great example of how not to deal with Iran.
The Iranians thought that the Brits would give in to their demands, that the Brits were willing to be humiliated, etc.
And they were right.
Wrong choice.
In this scenario, blame for the war should be put on Iran since Iran kidnapped the British, and then refused to release them.
Would the West have been forced to use force? Perhaps, on the other hand, perhaps Iran would have given in to the demands, because carefully planned and executed airstrikes would have completely destroyed the already weak Iranian economy.
In the end, I choose confrontation over giving in to thugs like the Mullahs. Yes. Also in the case of the weapons of mass destruction. If necessary, force should be used to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. If this results in a bigger war – which is possible – that is terrible, but the alternative, Iran with WMDs, is even more terrible.
That is and remains my position.
The goal should not be to avoid war, the goal should be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Then you have no room to demand any apology from anyone else after your slander of others.
I want retractions of your posts calling anyone anti-semitic, or apologies in cases where it is obviously unwarranted. You shouldn’t get special treatment here since others don’t.
MVDG=
In relation to me, then, you are eager for war. More standoffs are likely, and I fear you’ll get your chance for gloryone of these days.
To me, re the Brits, it’s much more important that the whole area did not descend into the chaos of warfare.
Iraq seems to have taught you nothing. There would be no chance to draw nice battle lines with formal rules of engagement. Al Qaeda would have been on the spot in no time. And I doubt Israel would have been left alone to watch calmly from the sidelines.
You make these nice imaginary plans with battle ships and all, but these plans, count on Iran and the rest of the ME to react as per your plan. Why would you expect that? And do you really think we have the capability to take on a broad new war?
OH, I forgot. No war.
Great column from Fred Thompson.
The issue with Iran is not that the Iranian people are eager for war with either the US or Israel or any other country, for that matter. In fact, the rather young populace in Iran tends towards engagement with the West, which in itself is a good reason to allow diplomacy to slow down the mullah’s nuclear intentions (which hardly anyone now disputes).
The concern is that some of the mullahs and their puppet harbor an escatalogical strain of Islam that wishes to bring about the End Times. In this context, logic serves little purpose in trying to predict what is up the clerical sleeves. It may (may, I said) be that war with Israel is seen in certain Iranian quarters as a EZPass to paradise.