News

Mutual Deterrence, a moral dilemma

Mutual Deterrence does not imply any sort of equality if the parties involved don’t share the same fear of consequences. While I agree to a large extent with Mr. Huck’s analysis and his criticism of United State’s Mideast policies, I have issues with the premises on which he builds his argument.

Mr. Huck considers Islamic Republic and “Iranian”, one and the same.  And, this is my main point of contention with his argument. The Islamic Republic has demonstrated that when it comes to pride and religious fundamentals, every damage is acceptable. You can’t apply the doctrine of “mutual deterrence” when dealing with IR.

Mr. Huck, with all due respect, you right:

“Iran has shown no signs of having a serious 'expansionist' program in mind. Terrorism primarily seems to be counter-occupation focused, whether physical or cultural occupation.”

I assume by Iran you mean IR. If that’s the case, what about Hezbollah? What about Iraq interferences? Are we supposed to accept and count on your assurance that Islamic Republic has no expansionist program in mind?

You also write:

 “They do want to be a first-class, energy independent, player in their neighborhood. Free to be equal. We could take them at their word.”

Again, who are these “they” that you are referring to? If you are talking about Iranian, I couldn’t agree with you more. But, if you are talking about Islamic republic”, I beg to differ.

You can criticize US foreign policies at any length, but I believe it is futile and detrimental to the national security to view and treat any totalitarian government who places no value on its citizen’s lives and is driven by values that ignores human rights, as your equal. If your post had referred to a democratic Iran I whole heartedly would agree with you.

Thanks again for the weight of your intelligent post on this thread.

Respectfully,

Bijan   

Yes, I stand impressed as well

and really can't add anything to what Captain said.  While I'm probably a tiny bit more inclined to deny the "right" to nuclear weapons to Iran (at this point anyway), I would love to see disarmament for everyone.  damet garm.

Mr. Dan Huck

Allow me to complement you on a well written, well organized, unbiased and logical comment. I enjoyed reading it.

As a clarification allow me to add that, even though I see the right of every nation to self defense, my reservation about current regime in Iran, and Israel is that both, in one form or another, are run by highly emotional and paranoid  leaders who see the [fear factor] the best policy of the national security for their respective countries.One denies the Holocaust so foolishly that makes the entire nation laughing stock, and the other invoked Amalek in alleged self preservation.

IF there is ever going to be nuclear disarmament in my life time it should extend to every single country and not only to Iran or Israel.

Best regards

-YT 

Mutual Deterrance capability implies a type of equality

The US and Israel are not willing to deal with Iran as a potential 'equal' of sorts, i.e., being a member of the club of nuclear weapons states. As soon as a state has the ability to make nukes and has made a few of them, that changes equations radically. There is no doubt Israel by itself has the ability to handle assured-destruction tit-for-tat, perhaps with anybody, ourselves included. What occurs, apparently, is a grudging acceptance on the part of one state, that the other state is a 'sovereign' nation, which is going to make decisions for itself, a la Joe Biden's remark, and that from that time on, the new NWS has a different set of diplomatic credentials. Kid gloves are called for.

By attempting to keep Iran in 'pariah' status, as untrustworthy of taking their place at the table of honest nations, ironically, Israel, and ourselves by extension are 'pushing' Iran towards attempting to become a NWS. Fifty years ago Israel felt it was looked upon as a 'pariah' by its neighbors, and one need only look at the NTI site's history of their nuclear program to see how their paranoia, realistic or not, propelled them forward to where they see themselves now: a first-class nuclear power - land, air and undersea based.

Israel and the US need to decide whether the hegemony we now have in the Mideast, based on the inequality implicit in the fact we are two of the world's most dangerous nuclear powers, exemplified by the 'dictatorial' manner of our speaking to the Iranians as we do, setting arbitrary deadlines for their compliance to our demands; that this is what we want to carry into the future, unchanged.

Unlike Japan in 1945, or Nazi Germany, or the USSR, or ourselves in our 'Monroe Doctrine' neighborhood, Iran has shown no signs of having a serious 'expansionist' program in mind. Terrorism primarily seems to be counter-occupation focused, whether physical or cultural occupation. Iran's most intense reactions seem to be of the "Don't Tread on Me" variety. They don't like to be pushed around and told what to do. They do want to be a first-class, energy independent, player in their neighborhood. Free to be equal. We could take them at their word.

The real issue seems to be, do we have the 'face' to withstand the uncertainty, the insecurity, of seeing whether our Hegemony can stand unaided by the willingness to threaten 'Amalek' to get our way.

Dan Huck

your term "controlled deterrence"

wrung a bell in my head and I finally remembered where (NOT "when" LOL) I heard it before.  It was actually "mutual deterrence" and so of course I had to look it up to refresh my memory!!!.  It was a speech by then secretary of defence McNamara... waaaaay back in 1967.  A portion of the speech:

It is important to understand that assured destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept. We must possess an actual assured-destruction capability, and that capability also must be credible. The point is that a potential aggressor must believe that our assured-destruction capability is in fact actual, and that our will to use it in retaliation to an attack is in fact unwavering. The conclusion, then, is clear: if the United States is to deter a nuclear attack in itself or its allies, it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.

I don't know that I personally agree with the "deterrence" philosophy but I can't argue its merit either.   At least you can say that "great minds think alike".  :-0

che jan

We live in the age of[controlled deterrence]. The world is so far away from a lasting peace that is scary. Just look around you, In US we built 1000's of nukes to deter USSR, they did the same in return. What stopped them from destroying each other was the fear of retaliation.

Iran is located in worlds most volatile region, destabilized Pakistan , India to the west,  and Russia to the north with life time ambition of getting their paws on the warm waters of Persian Gulf, although not neighbor, Israel  with her 200 or so war heads, highly agitated and with itchy trigger finger due to stupid remarks and rhetoric's of Antarinejad. And not to mention the 8 years of destructive war with Iraq.

Do I personally want to see entire nuclear arsenal be dismantled and those fuel to be used for peaceful purpose, for medical research, for clean energy, damn right I would, but unfortunately we are so far away from the dream of No-Nuke world that I doubt I would ever see it happen.

-YT 

aaahhh... but!

I am firm believer that every nation has God given right to be able to defend her sovereignty, at any cost, including but not limited to nuclear arms.

Wouldn't you much rather a world where the damn things aren't even necessary... for anyone!!! But maybe that's wishing for a little too much.  At least right now.  :-)

At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms, let me ask you this.  Why do you think it's important to have nukes anyway?  Just the make the playing field more even?  And if so, couldn't that be interpreted as just being a macho attitude with no real substance as a reason?  I'd like to hear more about why you feel the way you do.

Prefect my dear hamvatan

Speaking of nuclear issue,

I am firm believer that every nation has God given right to be able to defend her sovereignty, at any cost, including but not limited to nuclear arms.

My deepest reservation is  track record of the current regime, particularly some one as unstable and as unpredictable as Ahmadinejad. As to the reports and assertion of various parties, from US intelligence authorities to IAEA to regimes own claims, I do agree that all sides are basically lying.

We never know the truth.

-YT 

P/S I do enjoy your civil and informative debate.

Then, as I said, I believe

Then, as I said, I believe we are more in agreement than disagreement.  :-)

I'm also divided on the nuclear issue.  I'm very VERY clear that Iran should be afforded the same rights as anyone else.  It's also important to develop nuclear energy programs.  On the other hand, I'm also very determined that THIS regime NOT have nuclear power.  I do not believe, either way, reports that Iran does or doesn't have nuclear weapon intentions.  I think literally all of the reports are biased.  I do believe it is naive to think the IRI does not intend (or IS not) pursuing nukes.  Sorry, that is simply my feeling.  So to that end, I support the West installing whatever safeguards are intended to limit the IRI.  But of course the last thing I want is for our people to suffer!!!!! 

I'm just so angry that it has to come to this.

che khabar e jan

Firstly if I misread your comment attribute it to old age of mine. I did not mean to sound confrontational.

As to the sanctions, I personally have mixed feeling about it. In one hand I like to see IR suffer. My reservation is though would they in fact suffer.

Suffering of the regime will come as a result of their[IR goons] compassion for ordinary people of Iran. That is were whole argument lies, since IR regime has no compassion for the people of Iran, they could not care less how miserable their lives are, so as long as they can stay in power. Lets remember the Iran Iraq war, and how Saddam wanted to stop the war, yet Khomeini did not want to end it, causing hundreds of thousand death and untold destruction.

On the other hand, knowing how bad of shape Iran's economy is, sanction might be the straw that might break the camel's back[so to speak]. Question is, will this bring about the downfall of the regime OR will it empower them in consolidating what ever power and propaganda tools they have left in diverting the attention of the public?

In my humble opinion I think the later will happen. Sanction might be the excuse they need for more crackdown on the movement, more killings and more imprisonment. I do sincerely hope that I am wrong, dead wrong.

last  observation I like to make is the purpose of the sanction. The sanctions are being proposed are for alleged nuclear arm issue and allegation that Iran is seeking the atom bomb, and not because of the fraudulent election.  My understanding from Iran is that majority of the Iranians are supporters of nuclear energy program. Even IAEA's latest boss has announced that Iran does not have the nuclear arms ambition. Which brings us to the agenda behind the sanction.

Regards

-YT 

Captain

I'm not sure what "conclusion" you think I've drawn.  :-)  I think maybe you think I'm trying to interpret your meaning.  And I'm not.  I'm just making independent observations.  I think there is a very limited objectivity about sanctions in general.  Sanctions are intended to create hardship.  It seems to be the attitude that sanctions are bad because they hurt the people.  What else do you expect from them?  So what is the alternative?  Are Iranians suffering more as a result of sanctions imposed by the West, or injustices and indignities and crimes imposed by it's own government?  I understand that you feel differently.  Actually though, I think deep down we're really saying the same thing!

che kabar e Jan

Seems like you missed my point again dear. The reference was being made to American politicians and not the ordinary people.

Kindly read the entire dialogues between yours truly and Mr. carig to see the development of the statement, before jumping to conclusion.

Regards

-YT 

several responses

Ex.  I agree with you.  Certainly there are vast differences of opinion between Iranians.  Just as there are between Americans.  The vast majority of both nationalities are good, honest and decent people.  But there are also liars and thieves, evil and vicious people as well.  I would hope that Iranians see America and americans for the good of their majority just as Americans should see past the IRI and mullahs to the integrity of the Iranian people.  Our governments do not represent who we are!!!!!!   I do see a tendency of Iranians to blame the West for too much, instead of looking inward.  Which then makes it possible to take the defensive attitude that Captain refers to - If we think that US or any foreign country has good of Iranians in heart we will be fooling ourselves - which I believe is exactly the same attitude that Iranians take towards any other foreign country.  Since when did Iran take the good of Americans?  Why should we expect that the West should do any more for Iran than Iran would do for the West?  I really find that attitude to be self-defeating.  But I agree with your assessment of "some" Iranians and their attitudes of America and Americans. 

Bijan.  Zionism, Necom, colonialism, and all the other ism craps are just crutches to lean on when the argument cannot stand on its own.   Couldn't have said it any better!  damet garm

Mr. Sassan

You note:[Deep down you two KNOW that if this proposal passes, there will be TEN
TIMES more people on the streets of Iran shouting "Death to the
Dictator," because the majority of Iranians hurting because of a
potential gasoline shortage will only blame the IRI and no one else!
They won't blame the "zionists" and they won't blame America, but they
will in large part blame the incompetent and corrupt mullahs who have
forced upon them this potential unnecessary hardship!]

It is rather debatable IF the resistance in Iran can overcome the IR's propaganda machine for couple of reasons:

1. Due to imprisonment of most if not all the progressive  newsmen/women, and due to widespread censorship the opposition is going to have hard time to get his voice heard. Hence IR is going to be able to have the excuse to claim that the movement has been orchestrated by foreign countries.

2. Even if the public is able to get their voice heard, they are going to be labeled agents of foreign countries due to the fact IR will use this as an anti-nationalistic movement.

Fact of the matter is that gasoline in Iran has been rationed for a while anyways, and ordinary working class, particularly people who depend on fuel for income, i.e. taxi drivers and truck drivers etc etc will be seriously hurt. 

You noted [After all, a huge tool in the trade of all shiite Islamists is taghieh
or kitman, which basically states that outright lies and deception are
necessary so long as you're lying in the service of Islam]

I think you are going overboard by making such a statement. It is a known fact that PROPAGANDA is one of the  strongest tools any government has at their disposal. Islamic countries  are not the only government who uses them in order to manipulate the public opinion.

No doubt that IR is one of the most repressive governments but your personal hatred of Islam and Muslims  causes you to resort to exaggeration . [Taghieh or kitman - as you put it] is none other than propaganda that every single government uses in order to gain public support for their policies.

-YT 

Islamists and their phony indignation

Q and this "Ostaad" basically pretend that their real reason for disapproving this gasoline proposal is that it will hurt those brave Iranian people who are standing up to the barbaric regime. What  a bunch of bullshit! As if you two care ONE BIT for those brave Iranians standing up to your beloved mullah regime.

Deep down you two KNOW that if this proposal passes, there will be TEN TIMES more people on the streets of Iran shouting "Death to the Dictator," because the majority of Iranians hurting because of a potential gasoline shortage will only blame the IRI and no one else! They won't blame the "zionists" and they won't blame America, but they will in large part blame the incompetent and corrupt mullahs who have forced upon them this potential unnecessary hardship!

You deceptive Islamists KNOW this to be true, so here you are pretending that you care about the Iranian people, when in fact, you only care about the survival of the evil mullacracy and nothing else!

After all, a huge tool in the trade of all shiite Islamists is taghieh or kitman, which basically states that outright lies and deception are necessary so long as you're lying in the service of Islam, lest we all forget all the lies that akhund Khomeini told us before hijacking the national suicide famously known as the "Islamic Revolution," i.e., free bus fare, free water, free electricity, share of the oil profits, equal rights for women, democracy, religious equality, etc. ect.

Shame on liars, and agents of darkness and oppression!

Flawed argument…

All those who flatly and without reservation condemn any actions against the IRI as Zionist and Neo con plots, are defending a flawed argument. I am addressing those who on the one hand support Iranian struggle for freedom and are shouting that they cannot trust their own government (IRI), and on the other hand condemn the entire civilized world for saying the same exact thing (we don’t trust IRI). These people (which in my opinion are all extremely intelligent with the best of humanistic and democratic intentions), fail to offer an effective method to pressure IRI.

How could you pressure a government to prove itself to be trustworthy? (assuming that the whole world agrees that military intervention is off the table). Please, someone speak out. I am dying to know of a way that would not hurt or cause hardship for the nation.

 Zionism, Necom, colonialism, and all the other ism craps are just crutches to lean on when the argument cannot stand on its own.

capt_ayhab

Hate brings about more hate, never ending vicious cycle, which ends up
in blood shed, war, and destruction for both sides.

I agree. In fact, I'll even take it further and say that the end result of hate is death, and the end result of love is life. But that's merely a philosophical point, whenever the haters seem to outnumber the lovers.

This is my exact points, politicians count and in many ways they
have rather negative affect.

In my opinion, Akbar Ganji had quite a negative effect with his speech yesterday. I was unable to determine what the topic even was. It seemed like he was condemning the UN, the US, and just about everything else on the planet. The only good things he had to say were about the western left. Is that the message he wanted to deliver to the UN? Or was he just saying what the western left wanted to hear? So now he got his bills paid, when can we expect the speech that is about Iran? Does he intend to say anything about Iran, at the protest that was supposed to be about Iran? I don't get that at all. I don't know how that speech would be recieved in France, or the UK, or in Russia, but in the US if the average American heard that speech and nothing else they would drop their support for the Iranian opposition in a second.

Wars are won on propaganda realm[public opinion]
FIRST then in battle grounds.

So which public opinion was Akbar Ganji trying to get on his side? It can't have been American leftists, because American leftists account for < 5% of the population. Such support would have no meaningful value.  Especially if it came at the price of losing the other 95% of the population. It seems to me he couldn't have been further "off message" if he tried. But maybe he was trying to generate public support elsewhere?If so, support for what? He seemed like he was calling for a new world order, and not much concerned with resolving the crisis in Iran.

Mr. Craig

At the expense of being labeled as meddling allow me to give you my personal thought about hate;

Hate brings about more hate, never ending vicious cycle, which ends up in blood shed, war, and destruction for both sides. Every group, being social, political or religious has their extremist, be it Jews, Muslims or Christians. Sad part about it is that we as human beings tend to judge the entire group for acts of few. Why?  The extremist groups are the ones who stand out and make the most noise[so to speak].

You noted[The politicians count, though. They count for a lot. There are a lot of people who don't follow current events very closely]

This is my exact points, politicians count and in many ways they have rather negative affect. Take the situation in Iran and the Green movement. IR has been trying with all its might to make connection between the movement and foreign countries. They have been doing everything including forced[tortured] confessions of the detainee's. As a result when a political figure such as Mr. Brown of UK, or Mr. Reza Pahlavi, and any other political figure for that fact takes a harsh stance, all they accomplish is give the fuel of propaganda  to IR misinformation system. Wars are won on propaganda realm[public opinion] FIRST then in battle grounds.

This is not to say that Mr. Pahlavi, or Mr. McCain as citizens do not have the right to express themselves, point is, that  they are NOT ordinary citizens, They are public political figures what they say or due is seen as actions of a government[excluding Reza Pahlavi of course]. It is for this reason that I admire Mr. Obama's restrained policy about the current events, He did not take the bait IR has set.

As to situation between Israel and Palestine[although beyond our subject], I personally have been one of the harshest critics of Israeli POLICY. I have been labeled from Palestine lover to Anti Semite, to IR agent. Labeling people as such has become an ugly trend in both sides. However my personal opposition toward Israeli policies does not make me an anti Semite, same way my opposition to IR crimes or alleged crimes by Mr. Chaney or Mr. Bush does not male me an anti Iranian or anti American. Or Does it?

-YT 

Hmmm

It's been more than two years since I made a post on a facebook group, until today. And I've never used facebook for political discussion!  I'm so proud! Kinda. If I get hooked on facebook though, somebody is going down.

YT

First allow me not to be judgmental about the gentlemen you mentioned, for they are entitled to their opinion as you and I. 

Of course they are. And I am as free to make judgments about them based on their stated opinions as they are to make judgements about me, or about the "zionists" they so obviously loathe. On that point, don't you think it is appropriate for "zionists" to hate them back? Wouldn'tit be kind of suicidal for zionists to have any sympathy whatsoever for people like mola Nasradeen and Q? Wouldn't it be kind of suicidal for ANY American to have sympathy for people like Mola Nasradeen and Q? They hate Americans. And despite their very careful use of the word "zionist" they've made it pretty clear (in my opinion) that their distaste for the US goes far beyond politics.

But no, I didn't expect you to make any judgments about them. I just expressed my own judgments :)

With that said, I rather see sympathy and support of ordinary
Americans, as they have so purely demonstrated in various blog and
writings, than any politician, particularly of those who so clearly
belong to so called [war party].

The politicians count, though. They count for a lot. There are a lot of people who don't follow current events very closely.And Americans in general are very bad at paying attention to anything that happens outside of our borders. We are bad that way. So, when McCain says he supports the people of Iran, that's what a lot of Americans are going to do, too. Just because he said so.

I say this not because I am a republican , but because I see grave
consequences when groups like neocons, who as recent as NOW been
beating war drums against Iran, show the so called support.

Well, I agree that there's a lot of that going around, and not just with neocons. It makes me kind of sick how far a lotof people are willing to go in the name of Palestine not because they love Palestinians, but because they hate Jews. I really dislike the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.

craig

First allow me not to be judgmental about the gentlemen you mentioned, for they are entitled to their opinion as you and I. 

With that said, I rather see sympathy and support of ordinary Americans, as they have so purely demonstrated in various blog and writings, than any politician, particularly of those who so clearly belong to so called [war party].

I say this not because I am a republican , but because I see grave consequences when groups like neocons, who as recent as NOW been beating war drums against Iran, show the so called support.

Regards

-YT 

capt_ayhab

Do you think Americans are incapable of differentiating between Iranians like Q or Mola Nasradeeen, and decent Iranians who are worthy of our respect and support? I bring this up, because if somebody asked me if I cared about what happened to Mola Nasradeen or Q, I would say that I do not. Not only that: it would give me an immense satisfaction to see their aspirations turn to dust. But if I felt that way about all Iranians, or even most Iranians, I assure you I would not even be on this website. Is it really so hard to imagine there may be politicians and pundits in other countries who are hostile to the IRI but are not hostile to Iranians in general?

Che Khabr e

the reference was being made to recent[crocodile tears] that are being shed for Iranians. From neocons to Mr. McCain, to Shimon Perez and etc etc.

I am certain you have seen the article by Mr. Sahimi. It is a wonderful article.

//current.com/items/90351215_crocodile-tears-...

-YT 

YT

Your comment begs the question... does Iran or any other country have the US's best interests in mind?  Is it not exactly how it should be?  I can't imagine for one minute that anyone would shed a tear for the America, can you?  I think we should think independently of expecting anyone to have our best interests in mind, because we don't theirs, do we?  :-)

sepas

gol-dust

It is in their interest for AhmaghiNejad to be the president for another 4 years. 

US, has basically colonized the middle east and can only have Israel to police the area. At times like this one wonders who Khamenie and his goons are working for! For Iran[laughable] or US?

Like it is not enough that they[US] catalyzed Khomeini to the power in order to win the cold war with USSR. If we think that US or any foreign country has good of Iranians in heart we will be fooling ourselves. Their motive? US national interest and Petrol.....

-YT 

Damn zionists are at it again! They really are asses! SOBs!

Why don't they leave us alone? They are the oxigen to the IRI! When can we cut off this O2? They will never be trusted!

Thanks, Cap'n,

you see I have a very synthetic, pattern-oriented mind, and so I'm not good sometimes with shall we say 'information bytes', especially when they're quantitative. But I'm also very analytical so then I have to rely on that to understand, and I have to ask a lot of questions.More than most. I got over worrying about looking stupid here a while back. I'd rather look stupid (or uninformed) than be it. lol

Thanks again.

che khabar e Jan

I absolutely agree that the goal should be for entire humanity, peace and prosperity for all the nations.

However, in my tiny small microcosm called Iran, the most pressing issue right at this moment is my own country and countrymen/women. You might call me selfish, but 30 years of oppression, killings, torture, rape and imprisonment of 1000's upon 1000's of our best youth has made me such.

-YT 

Rosie

Rosie, Rosie Rosie,,,,,,,, You always want to aziyat[Joking]

A divestiture from an investment is by no means anything similar to sanction. In divestiture, the security portfolio is changed in a way that investment in securities of lets say Iran is sold in the open market[much like stock trade]. In the case of referenced blog, divestment is on all securities related to Iran, and not just petroleum products.

In sanction however, TRADE is frozen/prevented between the countries,  in this case gasoline. Member countries are forced to stop trading in commodities which could range from pharmaceuticals[i.e. case of Iraq] to food products and etc etc. No country, is allowed to sell or buy[TRADE] products to and from Iran.

-YT 

I'd like to ask again that someone reply to my post

below which is nominally addressed to Q but which clearly asks for an answer from anyone, and which is basically a series of simple questions which all roll into one question about very basic terminology.

To clarify, what confused me in the terminology was this very brief item I posted a couple of days ago.

//iranian.com/main/news/2009/07/22/l-county-supervisors-vote-divest-iranian-energy-sector

because what would be the difference between divestment and sanctions should the divestments be in the same area as the sanctions imposed, when the divestment is done by the public sector in the US, particularly since the item refers to many states which are currently divesting from the Iranian energy sector.

Thanks to any takers.