tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19184418.post114806015527616224..comments2024-03-09T22:15:04.984-08:00Comments on Global Paradigms: Interesting article on the Iran nuclear issue in the National JournalLeon Hadarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07074306142674999554noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19184418.post-1148500584701056232006-05-24T12:56:00.000-07:002006-05-24T12:56:00.000-07:00"nuclear umbrella" - you gotta love that phrase."nuclear umbrella" - you gotta love that phrase.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19184418.post-1148495114432367962006-05-24T11:25:00.000-07:002006-05-24T11:25:00.000-07:00If the U.S. is going to extend its nuclear umbrell...If the U.S. is going to extend its nuclear umbrella over Israel, Kuwait, et al., then it should be "by open covenents, openly arrived at". That is to say, we should conclude a formal defense pact with the nations concerned.<BR/><BR/>The real danger is of miscalculation based on our (and Israels) ambiguities with regards to whether and when nuclear weapons would be used.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19184418.post-1148301191428584932006-05-22T05:33:00.000-07:002006-05-22T05:33:00.000-07:00You were wise to note the subtle aspect of Bush's ...You were wise to note the subtle aspect of Bush's pledge to defend Israel from a hypothetial Iranian attack - Was that a non sequitor? Was Bush antipating Iran's possibly reply to Bush moving against Iraq? - What did Bush mean? Afterall, Israel can easily defend herself from any hypothetical Iranian attack. Right? Also - isn't Iran unlikely to attack Israel, save in response to a US or Israel (or together) move against Iran. After all, the Iranian leaders must know that any move against Israel would only lead to Iranian defeat. No doubt Bush knows this - and he also must know that Iran knows this and for that reason, if no other, Iran would not launch such an attack.<BR/>So for Bush to frame the issue around Israel seemed odd, for many reasons.<BR/><BR/>I don't know enough about this issue (or any issue, for that matter) to write with any authority, but I would guess that Israel would prefer that President Bush not frame his arguments that way - even though Bush is ostensbily speaking of his willingness to defend Israel. <BR/><BR/>Now Bush must know this - he ia very canny at this type of thing and most people don't credit him with that - The fact seems to be (in my opinion) is that Bush uses Israel more than Israel uses Bush - But the world will never buy that, for a number of reasons. The idea that Israel would prefer that Bush not pledge to defend Israel against Iran (at least in the context of the current controversy) is an idea that would confuse many voters - especially voters who wish the Jewish state well, but do not follow the various political games that go on with all the factions.<BR/>Why didn't Bush choose to highlight the many things Iran did against the US instead? If you hear Bush bring up Israel in the context of Iran, that seems like a clue Bush has decided not to go after Iran (for now). If Bush starts talking about the 1979 hostages, hizbollah in Beirut, Iranian links to specific terror from the past, or if he brings up the unresolved Khobar atrocity - then that would signal a more imminent plan to attack Tehran. Then again, this is just a guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com