Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Worthington

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Worthington
 

World Ends With a Bang Because of a Whimper

Posted: 03/ 9/2012 7:50 am


All the pesky troubles facing politicians today will fade into irrelevancy if Israel (read Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu) decides to attack Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities.

At the moment, Canada frets about robo-phone calls during last year's election; Americans are embroiled in their GOP primaries; Europe worries about the fate of its currency; Russians protest Vladimir Putin's re-ascendency to the presidency.

And so on.

All these issues will be sidelined if Israel attacks Iran.

And that possibility has shifted from "possibility" to "probability," judging from Netanyahu's recent meetings with both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama.

There is virtually no disagreement among nuclear "experts" that Iran is on the threshold (at least) of developing nuclear weapons.

It's the most critical issue of our time -- making the troubles in Syria seem a blip.

Netanyahu's visit to North America had the feel of quietly letting Israel's allies know what is going to happen, without actually spelling it out, or giving ultimatums.

Despite his words, Obama is not seen as friendly to Israel. He stresses sanctions against Iran, but the situation has progressed beyond that.

Obama's Number One priority is not Israel, but to be re-elected president in November. Understandable, but it also encourages Iran to ignore pleas for restraint. Obama has made it clear he will not risk his future by pledging the U.S. military to bring Iran to heel.

Any air strike will have to be an Israeli one -- incurring the wrath of critics. Netanyahu knows this, and his visit seems to confirm that Israel is ready to act, unless there is a dramatic change of direction by Iran.

Some say if Israel has a small nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't Iran have one?

The trouble is, the Iranian leadership is not Pakistani, nor Indian, nor like any other nuclear regime. If Iran has nuclear weapons, one can be assured that some terrorist organization will also get access to them. What if Hamas had an Iranian-made nuclear device?

None of Iran's neighbours want it to have nuclear capabilities. None like Israel, but also none fear Israel is likely to start a nuclear war -- though it would retaliate if attacked.

Apparently, aerial photos show a massive clean-up of a remote area in Iran where there has been nuclear testing. And testing has reached a point where it may soon be too late to do anything about it -- hence Netanyahu's warning that time is running out.

Again, according to most reliable sources, the reality of Iranian nuclear weapons is not a myth like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The Iranian leadership is pledged to Israel's destruction, and developing nuclear weapons makes this goal more than mere rhetoric. Mutual assured destruction isn't a deterrence in this case.

A nuclear attack on Israel would be fatal for Israel, while Israeli nuclear retaliation on Iran would be absorbed by that large country. The deterrence factor is lessened.

Maybe the point of no return has not yet been reached. But it is close. And to ignore Benjamin Netanyahu's concerns and warnings is a form of willful deafness that has led to past wars.

Whatever happens in the Middle East, the outside world must bear responsibility because it did too little for too long, and convinced itself that evil would not prevail.

 
All the pesky troubles facing politicians today will fade into irrelevancy if Israel (read Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu) decides to attack Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities. ...
All the pesky troubles facing politicians today will fade into irrelevancy if Israel (read Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu) decides to attack Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:25 AM on 03/14/2012
This is not about Israel, Iran indeed is a great threat to all of the countries in the area.
Saudi Arabia is also under threat and hat is the reason they will let Israel's jets to pass in their air space.
Iran has been violating IAEA regulation and must be stop !

check it out here: http://iranandiaea.wordpress.com/
11:17 AM on 03/10/2012
>>>Some say if Israel has a small nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't Iran have one?

Nice strawman.

Some say Israel should be disarmed and forced to adhere to international law through the imposition of sanctions and the reversing of the substantial amount of aid it receives from the west.
11:13 AM on 03/10/2012
Mr Worthington once wrote an article describing how he marched in a military parade but went in the wrong direction.

He has been marching in the wrong direction ever since.

>>>Some say if Israel has a small nuclear arsenal, why shouldn't Iran have one?

Nice strawman.

Some say Israel should be disarmed and forced to adhere to international law through the imposition of sanctions and the reversing of the substantial amount of aid it receives from the west.
10:16 AM on 03/10/2012
The call for more War is getting desperate, so much Financial Industry looting to obscure, so many corrupt shenanigans to divert public attention from.

Nice try.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:17 PM on 03/09/2012
Beat those war drums!!!!! feed the MIC!

More war!!!!!

What if Iran already has a few nukes?

Cuba did.

Only we and a few others are allowed to have nukes.

No countries we don't like are allowed to, because then we couldn't invade them for oil and profit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicanada
Blogger, radio co-host, writer, editor, voice-over
02:42 PM on 03/09/2012
Gee Peter, all those fancy words and you still won't actually confirm that, A) Iran is governed NOT by Ahmedinijad ( he is only their president) but by a council of elder mullahs who have never even hinted at any animosity agaist Israel, and B) Netanyahu is a war monger with grand visions of a Zionist-run middle east. It typical banty-rooster fashion he will pick a fight and then cry out for help from his protectors. It is a most disgusting behaviour and it is coming from an apartheid regime of extremists.

If Iran were so intent upon aquiring nuclear weapons, the could quite likely get them handily from the other members of the "Axis of Evil" like North Korea or even Pakistan. This is no thing to take lightly. Obama is correct in pressing diplomacy and most Americans and Canadians applaud him for that. Of course they probably don't read or fall for the neo-con agenda so often seen in the Sun.
10:34 PM on 03/09/2012
First of all, I am no expert. But I believe I read awhile back that Russia was willing to give Iran the nuclear medicine stuff it supposedly is trying to develop. But, Iran rejected this. Does this not give enough proof that what they really want is a nuclear bomb?
Thelonius
Lived in Middle East for
11:19 AM on 03/10/2012
No.
01:57 PM on 03/09/2012
It's been about 2 centuries since Iran started a war.

Israel invaded lebanon 6 years ago.

Scaremongering with creatively-translated quotes from Ahmedinejad twists the facts on the ground; Ahmedinejad has about as much power as Canada's governor-general, and the real power is with the Supreme Leader Khameini, who has zero interest in endangering his position by attacking anyone.

It is insane to suggest that Iran would hand nukes over to Hezbollah. That's like expecting the US to start handing nukes over to the Mujhadeen back in the 80s, to fight the soviets. No country would ever give up its strategic assets like that, for any reason.

Even the IAEA report that you claim says "Iran is developing nuclear weapons" doesn't say that. It says they might have some capabilities to do so eventually, though nothing has yet been confirmed. Meanwhile, the west is breaking the NPT by failing to allow development of peaceful nuclear power. Oh yeah, and Canada just signed on to help the UAE develop its nuclear programme.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Hatch
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
02:58 PM on 03/09/2012
Thank you for posting such a level-headed reply to this fear/war-mongering article. How clueless does Mr. Worthington think we are?
12:20 PM on 03/09/2012
Please educate yourself before spreading lies, fear, and hysteria. It is people like you who are a threat to world peace. Members of the media who try to convince an impressionable public that the world is a dangerous place. That we should attack before being attacked. The last world leader who believed in pre-emptive strikes was Hitler!
The facts are that Iran has no nuclear weapons right now. The U.S. has over 8,0000. Israel has over 200 secret nuclear weapons. The U.S. has invaded 16 countries since 1980. Iran has not invaded any! Who exactly is a threat to world peace?!?!?!? Israel commits atrocious human rights violations everyday and would love to take attention away from that.
I'm not supporting the government of Iran, but the people. We travel to Iran often and my husband (who is American) is amazed at the difference between actual life in Iran and the images that are fed to us by the media. We have NEVER met anyone in our travels who has been rude, violent, or angry towards us. EVERYONE we have met has been curious, kind, and happy to talk to us. Iran is the country my American husband feels safest being in!
Before you condemn an entire country (and the entire world) to death and devastation, please go and visit that place and talk to the people.
The problems of the world will NEVER be solved through violence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicanada
Blogger, radio co-host, writer, editor, voice-over
02:43 PM on 03/09/2012
Co-founder of the Sun . . . says it all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
greenmonk
The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself
06:37 PM on 03/09/2012
Faved.
But I would say that the last world leader who believed in pre-emptive strikes was George W Bush. (or Dick Cheney if you want to be exact). One of Peter's hero's I'm sure.
Thelonius
Lived in Middle East for
11:26 AM on 03/09/2012
Setting aside the fact that contrary to pro-Israel spin, Iran has never threatened to attack Israel (Israel, however, has frequently threatened to attack Iran) and the lack of credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, why would Iran attack Israel if it had them? Apart from the horrific nuclear retaliation it would suffer, if Iran were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel, it would result in the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Palestinians as well as Israeli Jews and given the radioactivity and prevailing winds, tens of thousands of Lebanese Shiite Muslims as well as Jordanians, etc., would perish. In short, for Iran to attack Israel with nuclear weapons would be self-defeating in the extreme.

Israel, however, possesses 200-300 nuclear warheads with missiles capable of delivering them throughout the region and far beyond. Furthermore, it will not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities. Iran has agreed with Saudi Arabia and declared the entire ME should be nuclear weapons free. This is in accordance with the Pentagon which has declared that the best way to deal with the issue is for Israel to abandon nuclear weapons. Israel refuses to cooperate because it wants to remain the invincible bully of the ME and hence, able to maintain its belligerent, illegal and brutal occupations of Palestinian and other Arab lands and continue stealing their water resources while building illegal Jewish settlement/colonies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phatbiker
Dentalfloss tycoon
11:05 AM on 03/09/2012
So we should start a war that could escalate into a nuclear war, to prevent a nuclear war? That makes sense.
09:35 AM on 03/09/2012
I think the danger represented by the robocall scandal may actually go way up if there is a destabilizing war in the Middle East. A real war is a dangerous time for the ethical basis of the democratic system to come apart. Those sort of conditions are what have heralded the transition to totalitarianism in other parts of the world before, and we would be fools to think that it cannot happen here.
A Jew with a View
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly
08:41 AM on 03/09/2012
While it is difficult to believe that a rationale country would actually consider attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon knowing that Israel's retaliation would be devastating, one has to wonder if Iran would be willing to sacrafice itself for the sake of Islam. That may sound far-fetched but is it any more so than asingle person willing to sacrafice him/herself and kill as many Jews as possible for the sake of Islam or the Palestinian people?
Nuking Israel would
1) Show Islam's superiority over Judaism. As PW notes, Israel's retaliation would be absorbed by Iran and but Iran as a country would continue to exist the day after. Israel would not. Iran has 75 million people. Israel 7 million.
2) Elevate the status of Iran not only in the Muslim world but also in the Arab world (yes, even if Iran is not an Arab country). They would would have accomplished something that that Arab and Muslim world have been able to accomplish for 64 years.
3) Show the Western world and Saudi Arabia that it means business. It would have eliminated the US's strongest ally and send a direct message to Saudi Arabia on other US allies that you could be next. The question is how many billions of dollars would be donated by the West or Saudi Arabia to rebuild their country?

Is the scenario probable? Maybe. Maybe not. Posible? Definitely.
Thelonius
Lived in Middle East for
11:30 AM on 03/09/2012
Your comment is nonsensical, beyond the pale.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/08-4

Why Israel wants to attack Iran - by Gwynne Dyer

EXCERPT:

"If Prime Minister Netanyahu and his fellow hawks truly believed that Iranian nuclear weapons would mean the extinction of the Jewish state, then their wish to attack Iran would be defensible, but they don’t. That’s just for public consumption. What’s actually at stake here is not the survival of Israel, just the preservation of the huge strategic advantage Israel enjoys as the sole nuclear weapons state in the Middle East."
A Jew with a View
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly
12:03 PM on 03/09/2012
"just the preservation of the huge strategic advantage Israel enjoys as the sole nuclear weapons state in the Middle East."

What exactly is the strategic advantage that Israel has by having nuclear weapons?

1)Clearly, it has not stopped its enemies from launching convential wars against it.

2)Therefore the strategic advantage would be to prevent its enemies from launching non-convential wars.
3) But if there is no likelyhood of its enemies doing so even after they have such weapons, then there again is no strategic advantage, unless
3) If Israel did not have nuclear weapons, its enemies would launch such an attack.