« Obama Tix: When Free Costs $1,000
Quote of the Day: Is History Repeating Itself For The Democrats? »
Taking Them at their Word
This week I’m finding it increasingly odd when I compare our country’s response to Iran vs. Russia. When Iran tells the world that they will “wipe Israel off the face of the map” we hear from numerous sources in our country that we will “take them at their word.” This takes place while Iran, while certainly dangerous on their own turf, is widely acknowledged as not having any nuclear weapons. (At least not yet.) Their enemy, Israel, is the only nuclear power in the region and has a formidable military force. Fair enough.
But strangely enough, when Russia tells us that they may take military action against any of their neighbors who allow American missile defense systems near their borders, a different response is seen from our Secretary of State.
Rice dismissed blustery comments from Russian leaders who say Warsaw’s hosting of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier opens the country up to attack.
Such comments “border on the bizarre frankly,” Rice said, speaking to reporters traveling with her in Warsaw.
“When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988,” Rice said. “It’s 2008 and the United States has a … firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland’s territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it’s probably not wise to throw these threats around.”
Compared to Iran, Russia is a formidable nuclear foe with significant conventional forces who (oh by the way) has already gone to the mat with one of their neighbors. They not only have the ability to lash out, but a demonstrated history of doing so. The question then becomes, why would we not take them at their word as we do with the Iranians? And would you not factor this into decisions regarding putting missile defense systems a few miles from Russia’s borders?
17 Responses to “Taking Them at their Word”
Because the neocons, for whatever reason, have not learned their lesson form Iraq and Afghanistan and want to go to war with Iran.
They don't want war with Russia.
Or, the Religious right wants Israel to be perfect again (without Muslims) so Christ can return and the Rapture can occur.
Of course you know that Iran didn't tell the world that…
But anyways, you're right if I'm interpreting you correctly. There is little to be gained from putting these missile shields in former Warsaw Pact countries, a lot to be lost. A new Cold War would not be good for anyone.
And then by what logic could we prevent Putin from putting missiles into Cuba as he as threatened to do?
Russia is a huge problem that requires a lot of thought and attention. Unfortunately Bully Bush wants to kick around Iran, Iraq, etc. because they can. But Bully Bush doesn't know how to speak to an equal (militarily) like Russia. Bully Bush's usual modus operandi of threatening military force just won't work. If Russia was threatened they could wipe us off the face of the planet. I see this as an example of Bush and team just kicking the can down the road and let the next administration deal with it.
Of course McCain will be getting advice from advisors (well, one advisor, but maybe more) who is (or was) paid by Georgia and is still in that country's pocket…. Hardly a “US first” approach. Particularly since McCain does see Russia as the threat.
Jazz,
Great comparison of our response to two similar statements.
I think it would be a great question to ask “Holly In Cincinnati” and the other neo-cons who rave on this site and others whenever the pipsqueak from Iran makes a comment about Israel.
Holly,
Why should Iran's comments of “wiping Israel off the face of the map” be taken seriously, while Russia's comments of taking military action against any of their neighbors who allow American missile defense systems near their borders not be taken seriously?
Holly
Any random neo-con
anyone
anyone
Bueller
Bueller
How about Iran is run by religious nuts bent on destroying Western Civilization, and Russia, while run by thugs, is at least run by thugs that just want power and money. There is no future for them if they start nuclear war. That same cannot be said of Iran, who are waiting for Holy War to begin.
Gee, you would think different responses for different circumstances would considered a good thing, and it likely would, if it didn't provide for another reason to bash Bush.
Yes, it's obvious that Iran is a lot more dangerous and will carry out its threats, you just have to look at history. For instance, Russia forcefully occupied Eastern Europe and invaded much of Asia…as well as helping sustain authoritarian regimes across the world for decades.
The mullahs in Iran have never been in an offensive war of any kind, and support a subset of the power structure in two tiny countries (OK one is a territory).
mikkel – go find a history book. Look up 'Persian Empire' as a starting point. Follow the trail from there.
AR,
WTF? Does that make the United States the country of earth loving Native Americans? Are Italians hell bent on world domination because of the Roman empire? Ditto for Greece.
Austin, the references to the Persian Empire not withstanding (since we're talking about the traditions and history of people actually living in modern day nations) Russia has no need to start a nuclear war. They only need to march over another border and blow up some nascent missile installations and march home. And Georgia pretty much showed them that we're too overextended to do much about it at the moment.
If we want to judge countries by their forebears, we should have nothing to do with Turkey, Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, France or England for starters.
To be fair to Austin I don't think that Russia has the same aims as the USSR (although at least its leader was involved in the KGB and grew up in the USSR apparatus, I'm pretty sure the mullahs didn't grow up within the Persian Empire……which wasn't a fanatical empire any more than others). Still, the USSR after Stalin is starting to look less and less like being driven by Communist ideals rather than just using communism as a justification for power and money (well I'm not saying it ever was for Communism like it should be, just it wasn't self deluded after Stalin). Especially the last twenty years or so organized crime had just as much influence as Marx.
And the Mullahs have ruled Iran for about 30 years now without managing to destroy it by being insane. And they would be destroyed instantly, so they wouldn't be able to hurt the West. If Iran was developing fusion bombs and ICBMs then let's talk, but that they are possibly developing fission bombs with no adequate delivery system is hardly a reason to start a war.
OK, more current. I seem to remember a little dust-up between Iran and Iraq recently.
AR,
Iraq invaded Iran, which started the war. For the record, we were on the side of Iraq during that one.
Yeah hence my “offensive war” qualification. Although you have to question the sanity of a country that sends tens of thousands of its citizens to their deaths by having them enter combat without weapons just to be cannon fodder. Oh wait, Russia did that too in WWII.
Chris we also sold some weapons to Iran…it's unclear how much we supported Iraq as much as just wanting the sides to inflict maximum damage on each other. Kissinger said as much.
There is a distinction to be made between the general nature of Iranians (who have a great deal of pride, or a big hang-up, depending on what you think of it, of their glorious past in ancient times), and the fundamentalist fanatics currently running it (and may exploit the Iranian pride). There is also a distinction between the active threat and menace that Iran has demonstrated itself to be time after time and the myths by those who would prefer to accuse the USA or Israel, dishonestly, of being the party in the wrong. (Or delusionally, but that merits no more respect than those who are dishonest.)
As for Russia, it has shown itself to be a menace — the Bear is back to making mischief — not only to the Georgians. Its government is run by simply the strongest, best-armed, most ambitious gang or mafiya among them all.
“If Iran was developing fusion bombs and ICBMs then let's talk”
Not a requirement. Iran only need have fission bombs (fusion bombs are unnecessary and in fact are normally “overkill,” albeit spectacular in their effects), and Iran is pursuing fission bombs. It needn't possess ICBMs to be the menace it already is to its “theater” neighbors, and in case it escaped your attention, Iran is pursuing space launch vehicle (SLV) capability, which of course given the “range” of such a rocket system is the underpinning of ICBM capability.
There is Obama news today, believe it or not, related to the following:
“Of course McCain will be getting advice from advisors (well, one advisor, but maybe more) who is (or was) paid by Georgia and is still in that country's pocket…. Hardly a 'US first' approach. Particularly since McCain does see Russia as the threat.”
First, let us be clear. It is Russia who is misbehaving and is belligerent. RUSSIA.
Not the “evil” USA. RUSSIA. Issue closed.
Second, regarding advisers: Obama has released some names! Oh, he includes squirming room with the word that these “may” be among his future advisors, in his administration. But at least we got some names of people to whom he already is listening and others he may rely on:
Sam Nunn (already)
Richard Holbrooke (already)
William Perry (already)
Richard Lugar
Chuck Hagel
“And then by what logic could we prevent Putin from putting missiles into Cuba as he as threatened to do?”
Obvious logic, that this is not an analogous situation in any way whatsoever and of course Putin's motives would be totally different than ours, and sinister, unlike ours.
I revisited this because Cuba is old-world, East-coast-dominating-the-USA, long-obsolete and I was led to consider a more modern example. What would be more remarkable and provocative would be to emplace offensive (as opposed to our defensive) missiles in Mexico.
Chavez putting offensive missiles in his nation or in a taken-over Colombia or Panama would be bad, too, but not as provocative as putting missiles in Mexico just south of the “frontier zone” (50 to 100 kilometers south of the border).
Any of the foregoing would be as equally “logical” as putting them in Cuba, which is to say, with no logical basis at all.