Republicans wrapping themselves in the wrong flag

[RerunStubs]

There's a worthwhile point here, the reporting overstates the poll result

Here are the options respondents are asked to choose from:

Israel is an important ally, the only democracy in the region, and we should support it even if our
interests divergeIsrael is an ally but we should pursue America's interests when we disagree with them
These aren't mirror images. The first one just says we should "support" Israel even "if" our interest diverge. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should prioritize their interests when they're in conflict with ours. I could see someone thinking of supporting Israel generally even though our interests are not always aligned.

All that said, it's pretty clear that many of our elected leaders and policymakers are unduly focused on what's in Israel's best interests rather than the United States'. And that if we were talking about any other country, it would be a scandal rather than an accepted staple of American politics.

This post was edited on 4/16 11:17 PM by RerunStubs

 

[RerunStubs]

Strange analysis

(1) Measuring the value and wisdom of a negotiated agreement based on the extent to which you've denied the other side what it wants, rather than secured what you want, makes no sense. By definition, an agreement is going to be something both sides are satisfied with, so why would we reject one just because Iran likes it. Just so we could say we've got really big balls?

(2) How do you know what "Iran wanted"? It's pretty clear that they got less than what they asked for, and though they are satisfied with what they got, that would be true of any deal.

 

[HenriPasseur]

You, CoH, Marvin, hoot, and hoosboot

set good example for mature posts. Thank you.

 

[RerunStubs]

Your rhetorical question seems to refute your point

Maybe the answer is military action, as you seem to imply, but even if it is, we won't be any worse off at that point than we are now, and certainly no worse off than before the interim agreement was struck in the fall of 2013. So no matter how skeptical you are of Iran's willingness to abide by the terms of the deal, it's hard to see what's lost by moving forward with a negotiated agreement (particularly as it will be much harder for them to accelerate towards a weapon with an intrusive inspections regime than without it).

And this is why, like Rock, I can't make head or tail of the rank-and-file Republican position on this issue. It just seems like an inchoate expression of hostility towards the very idea of engaging in diplomatic efforts to avoid a war. The constant analogizing to Munich -- as though broad aphorisms like "sometimes trying to avoid a war through diplomacy is a bad idea" were sufficient to guide our policy decisions here -- only reinforces that impression.

 

[IU3]

Do u have any clue what a Bloomberg poll is?

Obviously not. A Bloomberg poll. Hilarious.

 

[Collett_Park]

I guess you'll take your special understanding with you to the grave.

Do u have any clue what a forum discussion is?

Obviously not. A reply to a thread. Hilarious.



This post was edited on 4/17 8:06 AM by Collett_Park

 

[Rockfish1]

The regime won't collapse because of economic sanctions . . .

If we kill this deal. Instead the sanctions will collapse, and Iran will go ahead with its nuclear program unimpeded. I'm viewing this as it plainly is.

 

[Rockfish1]

Once again . . .

If you're talking about the Nazis, you're talking nonsense. Your rhetorical excess merely underscores how weak your argument is on its merits.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Shouldn't U.S. and Israeli interest be the same? We both should not want

for Iran to get a bomb. Iran has never been our friend. They chant,"death to America" a lot. Has Israel every chanted this? I see our interest are the same,which means the question is somewhat of a smokescreen. That is unless for some strange reason we want Iran to get a bomb.

 

[hoosboot]

So, are our interests the same as France and India and Mexico?

I don't believe any of them have ever chanted "death to America" (although the idea of a nation chanting something is an odd image to contemplate). Despite them not chanting anti-American rhetoric, I couldn't imagine saying that our interests are identical to theirs. Heck, the fact that they are in different regions with different socio-economic factors at work practically demands that our interest diverge at some points.

IMHO, your post kind of makes the point that Rock was making for him. You can't imagine how our interests could possibly diverge from Israel's and that is a problem.

 

[hoosboot]

To me, their foreign policy approach isn't incoherent...

…it's just bad. When you take posts like crazed's, MTIOF's, and Van's above as an indication of where conservative thinking is on the subject, you realize that their objectives are just different than yours. It's only when you set the bar as "Keeping Iran from having a nuclear arsenal without having to invade Iran" that it seems incoherent.

When you set the bar as "benefitting America's long-term interests", you realize that their foreign policy approach is just bad. :>)

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Don't Ya Think That If A Bloomberg Article Is Gonna Cite a Bloomberg Poll

for a polling conclusion, and they LINK the "poll" in the article, they might oughta want to link the part of the poll that provides the alleged "2:1" data?

Otherwise, a guy like Rockfish might get confused, reach the wrong conclusion and jump off his house.

Its like saying "Bob Gibson was the greatest hitting pitcher ever - here's a link to his ERA stats."

 

[HenriPasseur]

"hostility towards the very idea of engaging"

Maybe Obama is "hostility towards the very idea of engaging" on Congress?

Obama agreement already make change. Russia sell Iran new weapons. Iran some day get less sanction. Iran get more money. Big change. Iran only negotiate because sanction hurt economy and people.

Maybe you answer question. Why is Obama "hostility towards the very idea of engaging" on Republicans? Why is good for American interests?

 

[Rockfish1]

Well . . .

I don't hear anyone proposing to invade Iran. That would be a crazy thing to do, but if that's what they proposed then their opposition would at least be coherent. Since they conspicuously aren't proposing it, however, their opposition remains incoherent.

If they want to call for war, then they should man up and do it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I can't help you with that.

Almost no one provides links to their actual polling data. For a wide variety of reasons. Bloomberg felt the need to put together a little summary in PDF form for whatever reason, but it proves nothing it's not actual polling data. You're making a nonsensical criticism. The results of the poll are described in th article. If the 2-1 ratio isn't true, it's not because Bloomberg is jumping to conclusions, since they obviously have all the data they need. No, if the ratio is incorrect, they are just flat out lying.

 

[hoosboot]

I agree with some of that

I do think that some conservatives actually want war with Iran. We hear rumblings about some of that here. But, there's a lot of what crazed is suggesting is going on as well. They aren't in power to make the call, so they don't feel obligated to put themselves on the record with what they would like to do.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I'm only speaking about a nuclear weapon in the hands of people who have

said, "death to America" and "we want to push the Jews into the Med Sea". Are there other interests? What are they and how important are they compared to the bomb question?

 

[davegolf]

Re: I challenge you to


IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The proposed settlement benefits Iran and only Iran. The alternative is to increase sanctions and bring back all parties to the table and solve the damn problem of nuclear proliferation!!!!.

 

[meridian]

Apparently,

you are not going to get an answer this time either.

 

[Rockfish1]

EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, the proposed deal doesn't benefit Iran and only Iran. For at least the next ten years Iran will be unable to use any of its known nuclear facilities to make a bomb, and the intrusive inspections will make it very difficult for Iran to secretly start up new facilities. The sanctions will ease gradually as Iran demonstrates compliance.

"The alternative is to increase sanctions and bring back all parties to the table and solve the damn problem of nuclear proliferation!!!!."

This isn't an alternative, dave. It's ponies and starbursts. The P5+1 countries have negotiated the best framework they could get. If we kill this deal, we won't be able to bring all parties back to the table, because the rest of the world will have concluded that we're nuts. The sanctions regime will fall apart, and Iran will continue unimpeded to the bomb.

Remember, dave, that sanctions can only work if we have everyone sanctioning with us. This isn't something we can do unilaterally. Right now we have Europe, China, and Russia working (mostly) with us on this. If we kill the deal that they want, they'll stop working with us.

 

[Rockfish1]

Israel wants us to go to war with Iran

Since that would be a crazy thing for us to do, we've instead brought together Europe, China, and Russia to impose unprecedented sanctions that have helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. Those negotiations have produced a framework for an agreement that would keep Iran from getting the bomb for a pretty long time.

But the Israelis don't want a deal with Iran. They don't want this deal or any other deal. They regard Iran as their mortal enemy, and they want us to slay that enemy for them. But it is not in our interest to go to war with Iran, even if Israelis think it is in their interest for us to do so. Hence our interests diverge.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Rock, honest question here. What would the U.S. do if Israel took out Iran

and their ability to produce a nuclear weapon? Sometimes I think we would say, "go it alone". And then I wonder if we would take military action against Israel for doing so. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thx.

 

[Rockfish1]

There's only one way Israel could "take out Iran"

And that's with a preemptive nuclear strike. This would make Israel a pariah state. I hope (but doubt) that we would renounce Israel in that event.

Otherwise, everything I read says that an Israeli strike could set Iran back by no more than a year or so. That would be stupid, which probably is why Israel hasn't (and probably won't) do it. Nevertheless, if we knew that Israeli aircraft were en route to such a foolish end, we should shoot them down, because unless we're prepared to disown Israel, that would embroil us in war.

Only the United States has the ability to deal Iran a serious strike. And by "serious" I mean delaying them by five years or so, which is why hawks like John Bolton call for "regime change" -- by which he means, but won't quite actually say, an invasion and occupation of Iran. That would be crazy, and all non-crazy people know this, so while the military option may be on the table, it isn't in the cards. But that doesn't stop Israel from agitating for us to do it.

We lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation throughout the Cold War. I see no reason why we should undertake a disastrous war to prevent Israel from bearing the same burden we bore. We're their ally, not their pet pit bull.



This post was edited on 4/18 12:01 PM by Rockfish1

 

[VanPastorMan]

I agree with much of what you've said. Could the U.S. give extra support

for Israel minus boots on the ground to help Israel defeat Iran? If we gave them extra weapons,air, and sea support it would seem like they could probably do the heavy lifting. Just my opinion. Of course situations change quite a bit over there.

 

[Rockfish1]

Wait, what?

Israel can't invade and occupy Iran, with or without our help. Even we couldn't do that, and the IDF is vastly smaller and less capable than the US military. The only question is how much damage the Israeli air force could do to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. But having just said that we ought to shoot down Israeli attack aircraft if they attempted such a foolish thing, I'm baffled that you're asking me how we might help them do such a foolish thing.

Why would we help them? That would be crazy. And if we're going to "help" them, then we ought to just do it ourselves, as they want us to do. If we were going to launch an attack on Iran, we'd want the Israelis to stay the hell out of our way. They don't add anything to our equation, and "helping" Israel would stick us with all the adverse consequences of doing it ourselves.

I don't understand how anyone with upper brain function could agree with much of what I said, then ask the question you asked.

 

[Rockfish1]

I hear that

It's a fair point, and I'll even credit crazed's take that the Republican respondents are just acting out in opposition to our policies and shouldn't be assumed to mean what they said. Both poll questions and poll answers are open to question.

But as your post recognizes, American politicians proudly pay obeisance to Israel in terms that would be scandalous in regard to any other country. And all of our foreign policy debates that touch upon Israel are hobbled by emotion and confusion over whose interests we're actually prioritizing. Our ally Israel returns no such puppy love because it can't afford sentimental nonsense.

Nevertheless, Israel is profoundly misreading its own interests these days. If it hasn't already, it will soon pass the point of no return to pariah status as an apartheid state. Neither time nor demographics is on Israel's side. It must make peace and disgorge the occupied territories, or it is doomed. That's sad, but we can't tie our interests to an ally that can't even sort out its own interests. The judgments that Bibi and way too many other Israelis are making these days are informed by a big dose of crazy. No wonder it excites Republicans.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Aren't you discounting the Israeli army? They are not slouches. I believe

they could handle Iran by themselves as long as we don't interfere. I was saying we would help them because we have a common interest. Or least we should have one.

 

[Rockfish1]

You aren't a geography buff, are you Van (Edited)

Let's start with a map:

As you can see, Israel would have to invade at least two countries before it got to Iran. (And vice versa, if you think about it.) Neither of these countries is in danger of being invaded by the other.

Meanwhile, Van, the population of Israel is 8 million. The population of Iran is almost 78 million. For scale, we couldn't subdue Iraq (population 33 million) with our entire military might -- which vastly exceeds the capacity of the IDF.

Your confidence that the IDF could invade and occupy Iran with just a little help is based on your vast incomprehension




This post was edited on 4/19 12:33 PM by Rockfish1

 

[Sope Creek]

My sense is that you're giving the Israeli army too much credit . . .

I don't think either we or the Israelis think they can go into Iran and defeat the Iranian army by themselves . . . certainly they couldn't do so and continue maintaining control over Iran in the same type of occupation they're engaged in in Gaza and the West Bank, which is what it would take to continue to prevent Iran from developing its nuclear program indefinitely.

The only long-term solution to this problem is negotiating a deal that everybody can live and be relatively happy with. Israel's not going to be able to dictate those terms, particularly with the interests of a variety of European countries in the mix in addition to the US's interests, to the extent that the US's interests diverge from Israel's . . . and they do diverge; I seriously doubt that the current Israeli government would throw the US under the bus a good bit if they could assure Israel's existence on their terms.

 

[davegolf]

Assume you are right for the moment. How does statements like the following affect the positions of both sides. Who really speaks for whom?

"TEHRAN — International nuclear inspectors will be barred from all Iranian military sites under any deal with world powers, a senior commander in the Revolutionary Guard said Sunday, setting up a possible standoff as negotiators try to reach a final deal.

General Hossein Salami, the guard’s deputy leader, told Iranian state television that allowing foreign inspection of military sites is tantamount to ‘‘selling out,’’ raising the stakes as talks between Iran and the six-nation group are to resume April 22 in Vienna.

‘‘We will respond with hot lead [bullets] to those who speak of it,’’ Salami said. ‘‘Iran will not become a paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.’’

Salami said allowing foreign inspectors to visit a military base would amount to occupation, and expose ‘‘military and defense secrets.’’

‘‘It means humiliating a nation,’’ he added. ‘‘They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams.’’