Exciting New Reasons to Bomb Iran

I sometimes feel like "bomb Iran" is just a policy proposal walking around in search of a solution. Mostly, it's supposed to solve something related to their nuclear program but nobody can ever quite say what. Sometimes, it's for something to do with their "meddling" in Iraq. Here via Tyler Cowen we see Shmuel Rosner confront the fact that bombing Iran isn't a good way of preventing them from getting nuclear weapons, and come around to favoring bombing Iran anyway:

According to this line of thinking, which has adherents...focusing on the tactical questions surrounding such an operation -- how much of Iran's nuclear program can Israel destroy? how many years can a bombing campaign set the program back? -- is a mistake. The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis...any attack on Iran's reactors -- as long as it is not perceived as a military failure -- can serve as a means of "stirring the pot" of international geopolitics. Israel, in other words, wouldn't be resorting to military action because it is convinced that diplomacy by the international community cannot stop Iran; it would be resorting to military action because only diplomacy by the international community can stop Iran.

This, honestly, would be downright silly if not for the fact that bombing countries is per se a serious business. One likes to think that Israel hasn't managed to survive this long in a dangerous neighborhood by being run by morons and, thus, this policy is going to be rejected. Meanwhile, as one can see here, what's needed here are fewer rumors of war and more direct engagement by the United States in a serious diplomatic effort at a rapprochement with Iran. Israel's soi disant friends in the United States seem to get antsy at the prospect of anything resembling a real diplomatic initiative, but it would clearly be the best thing for Israel as well as for the US, Iran, Iraq and the world at large.

Comments

Since the logic you espouse make sense and I would add the people advocating this logic aren't morons, isn't it times perhaps to search for the hidden agenda?

How about this hypothesis. Hawks don't care that much about Iran's nuclear program or rather they are but not as much as let's say Iran as a hegemon or Iran as a serious player which isn't friendly to US- Israel interests.

I am not facetious or rhetorical here. I don't know if this hypothesis is true or not, but I think it's worth exploring.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | July 16, 2008 12:14 AM

Not only is it not clear that US rapprochement with Iran would be good for Israel, it is clear that it would not be good for Israel (while that is probably not the case for the US, Iran and Iraq).

That is, for most commonly accepted definitions of "good for Israel".

Iran, with wide consensus domestic popular support, officially calls for the end of the Zionist endeavor. Rapprochement means modifying sanctions which means making Iran richer, or having more resources with which to pursue its foreign policy goal of pressuring Zionism to end.

Now if we define "good for" in such a way that peacefully ending the Jewish majority state is "good for" Israel, kind of the way ending the White majority state was "good for" South Africa, then rapprochement with Iran would be good for Israel the way it would in a straight forward way be good for all of the other mentioned actors.

But very few people define "good for" that way, and there is no way to end or reduce economic sanctions on Iran that would be good for Israel-as-a-Jewish-state.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 16, 2008 12:14 AM

I see, by bombing Iran, we can arouse the international community, ie the U.S., to go to war with Iran.

How about not?

I wonder how this model works? By bombing Israel, would Iran arouse the international community to finally create a two state solution? How about bombing the U.S. - will this finally convince Americans to get serious about their levels of debt? How about if I went in and shot my neighbor - would that convince the world community that he needs to turn down his music?

It isn't the stupidity that is frightening, it is that this is pretty much the establishment baseline. I can't imagine that Fred Hiatt would disagree with Rosner, who I believe is a Slate favorite as well as a Marty Peretz special guest.

Posted by roger | July 16, 2008 12:18 AM

Reason? They need a reason? They want to bomb Iran. They think it would be awesome. The fulfillment of a long-time dream, something for the books and the 20 year reunions.

Posted by El Cid | July 16, 2008 12:27 AM

I think that for the people who are all upset about Iran it goes back to when "those people" overthrew "our friend" the Shah. They must be forced to pay for that.

That gets combined with the memory of when Israel "took out" the Iraqi nuclear facility.

As a side note may I suggest not quoting the New Republic? It really is one of the mother lodes of stupidity.

Posted by Mark | July 16, 2008 12:30 AM

The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis

This is a theory that cries out for broader application: The next time you're sitting around a conference table at work and things aren't going anywhere fast, just go ahead and randomly deck someone on the other side. Or maybe cut one of his or her fingers off with a plastic knife from the sandwich tray. That should really stir the pot and push the problem toward resolution.

Posted by southpaw | July 16, 2008 12:42 AM

Hey man... "If they breathe, we nuke".

ps: you know, I really like the New Yorker, but I thought this made a good point:

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/3638/mccain1223cb6.png

It's not so much about the magazine itself, but it ultimately just serves to throw it into the air, like the old time cable news "Some say" and "is...?" question that can go just as a question without being responsible for (but yeah, it was satire, and just so it'd get more attention and so perhaps some folks who'd think it's an 'elitist' magazine would perhaps buy it or see the magazine in a different light).

Posted by Mick | July 16, 2008 12:45 AM

Here's the best I can come up with.

Israel decides that only international diplomacy can solve their Iran problem. The US has to be fully engaged for that to happen. But the US is full of nuts who think that diplomacy equals appeasement, so it isn't fully engaged.

The only way out is to throw the nuts a bone ... appease them, if you will. So Israel bombs Iran, and while John Bolton et al are busy cleaning up their orgasms, the US has breathing room to find a diplomatic solution.

Brilliant!

Posted by weichi | July 16, 2008 1:06 AM

Iran, with wide consensus domestic popular support, officially calls for the end of the Zionist endeavor. Rapprochement means modifying sanctions which means making Iran richer, or having more resources with which to pursue its foreign policy goal of pressuring Zionism to end.

What, exactly, would having more resources (but no nuclear weapons) allow Iran to do to achieve this goal that it is not already doing? It's worth noting that Hamas doesn't particularly care for Iran, and that Hezbollah is probably making about as much trouble for Israel as it cares to. I don't see how Iran having more money would lead to any particular specific negative results for Israel.

Posted by John | July 16, 2008 2:18 AM

Maybe its just anti-arab and anti-muslim chauvinism in Israel and among its supporters in the US that prompts the 'let's bomb Iran' way of thinking? Like 'let's colonise East Jerusalem'. After all, if we were looking at the behaviour of the French settlers in Algeria or their right wing backers in Paris, that would be an obvious explanation.

One thing to add: if Israel attacks Ira, there will be many in Europe who will more intensively move towards thinking, not about more negotiations with Iran, but about the need for a One State solution in Palestine and ending Israeli colonialism and militarism. You know that Tony Blair was finally forced out partly because he backed Israel's assault on Lebanon? Wait and see what happens to European pols that support a Israeli and then US war with Iran.

Posted by otto | July 16, 2008 2:25 AM

So the nuclear weapons business is really just a pretense to, uh, bomb Iran.

It's funny that that's what it sounded like all along, isn't it?

I guess the policy really is just to go in there and get oil. Either that, or it's just what it's said to be (by John Bolton and people like Rosner)- a way to create instability in Iran (in the hopes that a different, future regime will be able to cut Western middle-men in on a bigger share of oil profits).

Posted by Swan | July 16, 2008 3:24 AM

One likes to think that Israel hasn't managed to survive this long in a dangerous neighborhood by being run by morons and, thus, this policy is going to be rejected.

Uh-oh-- now Matt sounds like a conservative defending Ronald Regan, George W. Bush, and the whole post-WWII military-industrial complex. Lest he go unanswered, let me make a few points to answer Matt's inner conservative:

-Although Israel has survived, they have had a lot of problems they have not been able to solve. It may be that the amount of smarts they have only gets them so far, and right now it doesn't go far enough to provide them an effective solution when it comes to Iran.

-Stated a little differently, it may be that short-term smarts are a little different from long-term smarts, and that the problems Israel was able to face such that it could simply continue to exist didn't require nearly as much perspective as problems they're presently facing or things they want to solve.

-It could be something like the dynastic cycle- the older Israelis/Western forces were the Greatest Generation that had the brains to solve their problems, but the grandkids pale in comparison and instead of thinking to find an appropriate solution, they tend to merely imitate the same kind of thing their grandparents and parents did, and hope it will be sufficient to answer today's different situations.

See? Even Bush, the warhawks and America's current crop of conservatives in general could be morons!!

Posted by Swan | July 16, 2008 3:37 AM

I'm not accusing Matt of trying to passively stick up for Mr. Bush or anything, by the way, it's just his sentence sounded a little too much like what conservatives use to try to excuse Bush's poor leadership, so I wanted to make sure I fielded that ball before it could have an impact on some impressionable young person.

Posted by Swan | July 16, 2008 3:43 AM

From the point of view of Marty Peretz and his boys at TNR, what's not to like about the idea that if Israel bombs Iran, there will be magic ponies for everybody?

Either there will be magic ponies or there won't.

But in either case, Israel ... kills ... lots ... of... Iranians. From Marty's perspective, it's a no-lose proposition.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 16, 2008 4:38 AM

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that "stirring the pot" in this way would produce a holocaust. Starting a war with Iran, which no one should doubt would be the result of significant strikes, would prompt an immediate barrage of missiles into Israel, probably accompanied by a wave of suicide bombings and other concerted actions there; and a vast assault on American forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. For one example, Iran has in the heights commanding the Persian Gulf virtually un-strikable supersonic anti-shipping missiles against which we have no effective defense. As soon a strike goes into Teheran, those missiles will be launched against the tens of thousands of US sailors and Marines floating around in the Gulf like sitting ducks. Oil shipments through the Straights of Hormuz would stop, and the entire world economy would crash. And etc.

The Iranian leadership doesn't appear to make any distinction between Israel and the US when it comes to this sort of thing, and it's not hard to see their point. I don't think Israel could strike Iran without US cooperation, or at least permission, either.

Since this scenario isn't exactly a state secret, it seems to me that the chances of a strike are vanishingly small. Moreover, it is the consensus of experts on Iran (including many Iranians), that most people in that country don't give a rat's ass about "Palestine", so rather than imagining doomsday scenarios in which the clock is ticking towards an all-out Persian assault into the Levant, a more realistic scenario has the clock ticking towards a modification of the regime's hard line towards Israel. Polling data on this question is virtually useless--Iran is after all a repressive police state in which one can hardly expect people to respond frankly to difficult ideological questions posed by foreigners. Besides, responding to a question like "would you prefer Palestine to be governed by a Muslim majority?" is a bit different from the likely response to "would you agree for a ruinous war on behalf of Arabs?".

Posted by robert powell | July 16, 2008 4:46 AM

Very possible too that strikes on Iran would provoke bloody attacks on U.S. synagogues, yeshivas, Jewish summer camps, etc. Easier to get to than in Israel and it would make one hell of a statement to the rest of the country. Somehow, the Lieberman crowd never considers that there are repercussions to their "Kill All The Muslims" insanity. For them - 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. support for Israel either. It's not just that they're delusional. They're really a sick and twisted as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Mengele...

Posted by Trevor | July 16, 2008 5:15 AM

Powell gets it right on the consequences of a war with Iran, then comes to the complete wrong conclusion that therefore it won't happen. Because, of course, exactly that scenario - if about four times smaller than what will happen in Iran - happened in Iraq and he can't acknowledge that.

Matt, of course, can't handle the cognitive dissonance which would result from his concluding that the real reasons for all this are:

1) The US government is run by criminals whose only interest is in money and power.

2) Those whose motives aren't money and power are owned by Israel.

The sole and only reasons for all of this are:

1) Seize the oil in Iran.
2) Destroy Iran as a regional power, in favor of the US.
3) Destroy Iran for Israel.

Various people in and out of the US government have one or more of these motives. Almost none of them actually believe Iran has nukes, or don't care if Iran actually does. That much this asshole referenced in Matt's post demonstrates.

Arnold Evans is correct that there IS no solution as long as:

1) Israel is a Zionist state.
2) The US is a criminal state.

Therefore the only real solutions are:

1) Destroy the Israeli state.
2) Destroy the US state.

1) might occur, but is unlikely unless somebody steals an Israeli nuke or two.

2) isn't going to happen - except by self-destruction. Fortunately, an attack on Iran is virtually guaranteed to devastate the US economy, and eventually bleed the US military to death, as well as destroy what little geopolitical credibility the US has left (if any).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 7:21 AM

I wonder if McCain could really have a serious discussion over the reasons he thinks we should destroy Iran. I don't think he'd be able to explain himself.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 16, 2008 7:47 AM

Iran, with wide consensus domestic popular support, officially calls for the end of the Zionist endeavor. Rapprochement means modifying sanctions which means making Iran richer, or having more resources with which to pursue its foreign policy goal of pressuring Zionism to end... [therefore] there is no way to end or reduce economic sanctions on Iran that would be good for Israel-as-a-Jewish-state.

This logic only holds if you believe that Iran's foreign policy with respect to Israel is eternal and unchangeable, unlike the foreign policies of every other nation in history.
Nations do not have permanent friends, they have permanent interests. So said Metternich, and I would add that this means nations do not have permanent enemies either.

Posted by ajay | July 16, 2008 8:12 AM

What, exactly, would having more resources (but no nuclear weapons) allow Iran to do to achieve this goal that it is not already doing?

Two things, one the amount of aid to anti-Israel groups would increase. Two, the deterrent effect on other countries - meaning Saudi cooperation with isolating Hamas, to the degree that exists, is threatened by reducing the penalty on Iran for doing the same thing.

But Palestinians could be getting a lot more support than they are getting today. And a large part of keeping the levels of support down is related to the sanctions on Iran.

Oh, a third thing, Israel now, because of Iran, has a neighbor (Lebanon) that is approaching invulnerability to Israeli attack that has been accomplished without an unpopular accomodation to Israel. Egypt's and Jordan's unpopular accomodations to Israel are threatened by the prospect of Iran credibly offering those countries assistance.

Let me add here that the idea that Iran envisions an attack, nuclear or not, on Israel is the Israeli equivalent of Americans who think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Nobody serious believes that in any country, but unserious people are allowed to continue believing it because it points them in the desired direction.

Iran envisions Zionism ending kind of the way Apartheid ended. Most Iranian people see Zionism and Apartheid as similar injustices. Apartheid ended when it became clear that the Africans had too much support to deny indefinitely and would develop the capability to more and more seriously hamper normal functioning in White South Africa. Iran envisions Zionism ending semi-voluntarily the same way.

So lastly, it is very important for Israel strategically that Iran remain as poor as possible. That is the foundation of the US sanctions policy and what prevents rapprochement between the US and Israel. I thought everyone knew this.

Besides, responding to a question like "would you prefer Palestine to be governed by a Muslim majority?" is a bit different from the likely response to "would you agree for a ruinous war on behalf of Arabs?".

How would Western citizens respond to a poll "do you prefer there be a majority Jewish state where Israel is?" how would they respond to a poll "would you agree for an extremely disruptive war on behalf of Israeli Jews?"

As earlier, Iran doesn't plan on invading the Levant. It plans on playing a role supporting Palestinian Muslims parallel to the role the US plays supporting Israeli Jews. This has wide support in Iranian society, as unreasonable as it seems to you outside of Iranian society.

I always say polls are a lot less meaningless than anecdotes - and other than "I spoke to this guy at an internet cafe" there is no evidence at all, at all, that Iranians favor returning to the Shah's pro Israel orientation. There is a lot of evidence the other way.

Also, watch how you use the word "moderate". Because what to you is the reasonable position that Muslims should just accept defeat and accomodate Israel as an invulnerable leading nation of the Middle East is not moderate in the Middle East, it is closer to the outrageous fringe.

This logic only holds if you believe that Iran's foreign policy with respect to Israel is eternal and unchangeable, unlike the foreign policies of every other nation in history.

Do you think Nigeria would eventually have recognized Apartheid South Africa? Maybe if there was a pro-Western coup - but no half-way democratic government anywhere in Africa was ever going to cooperate with what nearly all Africans saw as an injustice. The greater Middle East is the same way.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 16, 2008 9:27 AM

any attack on Iran's reactors -- as long as it is not perceived as a military failure -- can serve as a means of "stirring the pot" of international geopolitics.

I don't even know how to react to arguments like this. Perhaps I'm incredibly naive, but isn't there something morally wrong with bombing a country for purely symbolic reasons?

This "psychotherapeutic policy" stuff is pretty funny when it's offshore drilling or the economy. Not so funny when millions of lives are at stake.

Posted by Jake H. | July 16, 2008 9:46 AM

The one country I could see nuking Israel would be Russia. But, it'd be completely covert - they'd supply some al-Qaeda type with some kind of device and the idiot Israelis would retaliate by dropping a few nukes on Iran. If Putin thought he could get away with this - he'd do it if not in a heartbeat...certainly in an extended discussion.

Posted by Trevor | July 16, 2008 9:51 AM

One likes to think that Israel hasn't managed to survive this long in a dangerous neighborhood by being run by morons

Speaking of which, Netanyahu apparently has a good shot at recapturing control of the Israeli government at the next election.

Posted by mds | July 16, 2008 10:07 AM

As bad as Bibi is, he is not worse then the current crop of clowns running the Government of Israel. Actually, the Palestinians would prefer dealing with Bibi who is mostly hot air. When push comes to shove, Bibi is basically a wimp and is probably more likely to make a deal and make it stick then morons like Olmert.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 10:17 AM

Matt, as often you are so right about this.

As Scott Ritter points out the Iranians have switched from talking down the US/Israeli sabre rattling as bluster to responding in kind and they are doing this to give Mullen and the realists the ammo to argue that there is no way the fallout for an attack on Iran can be restricted without much more serious preparations than those that have already been made and, of course, those preparations can't be made before January.

Cheney and the neocons have been desperate since 2005 to bring about regime change and they figure that whatever the outside chances bombing is their last best shot. They don't care about the risks to the Middle East and the American/world economy: that kind of pain will be felt by poor people and foreign suckers.

However the neocons need a plausible rationale to sell to the rest of us. As Matt says they have a solution in search of a problem.

Posted by Chris Dornan | July 16, 2008 11:13 AM

I suggest you all read Scott Ritter's (chief weapons inspector for the United Nations) new article about why Israel and the US are in no position to iran:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080714_iran_shows_its_cards/

The assumption that Israel in fact is capable of carrying out such attack without MASSIVE RETALIATION is plain moronic.

Iran WILL destroy Tel Aviv in less than a day.

Posted by Hameed | July 16, 2008 12:29 PM

I suggest you all read Scott Ritter's (chief weapons inspector for the United Nations) new article about why Israel and the US are in no position to iran:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080714_iran_shows_its_cards/

The assumption that Israel in fact is capable of carrying out such attack without MASSIVE RETALIATION is plain moronic.

Iran WILL destroy Tel Aviv in less than a day.

Posted by Hameed | July 16, 2008 12:33 PM

Can you name even policy has Israel pursued since 1948, that would not have been rejected if the country were not run by morons??????

Posted by Egypt Steve | July 16, 2008 1:19 PM

Scott Ritter is not now and has never been "chief weapons inspector for the United Nations". He is right about some of the consequences of attacking Iran, though, and he's hardly revealing anything US and Israeli leaders don't already know. Only the most extreme panic-mongers and anti-American ideologues imagine that they will ignore the virtually certain consequences of launching a new and bigger war at this time. Strikes against Iran are opposed by the entire Pentagon, including Bush's SecDef; virtually the entire US Congress; and a big majority of the American people. Ain't gonna happen.

It seems that Nick Burns is going to be attending the upcoming talks between Iran and the Euros. Obama has begun to lay out details of his planned diplomatic offensive. It should be clear by now that the rational approach of engaging Iran diplomatically with a view to changing the long-term relationship, hopefully augmented by a significant increase in cultural contacts with the Iranian public, is what is actually in the cards.

It's my firm impression that while most Muslims don't care for Israel in the abstract, they are far more concerned with the multitude of problems they face in daily life at home. Israel has been used as an excuse and a distraction by corrupt and incompetent governments in the region for decades, and the people there are increasingly wise to the scam.

A huge majority of Poles, Balts, Ukrainians, and Germans, among others, were certainly aware of the injustices perpetrated on the tens of millions of people expelled from ancestral homelands in Europe after WWII, but they learned to adjust. It's only the manipulations of rulers with vested interests in conflict that have convinced Arabs that they are entitled to a special justice unavailable to anyone else, and as these manipulations inevitably lose credibility prospects for a reasonable settlement increase.

Posted by robert powell | July 16, 2008 1:48 PM

The problem with Arnold Evans' views is he assumes the alternative to a strong anti-Israel Iran is a less anti-Israel climate in the Middle East.

In fact, almost all of the Muslim populations in the Middle East, and most of their governments, espouse lots of anti-Israel and in some cases anti-Semitic rhetoric. Holocaust denial isn't limited to Iran, and neither are textbooks setting out a one-sided version of the formation of Israel or biased news coverage on state television.

If Iran isn't as powerful, some other Muslim state will fill the vacuum, and that state will be just as anti-Israel as Iran is. Or a new Iranian government will arise that is just as anti-Israel as the old one was.

This has been the received wisdom for 60 years and is why, even though peace with the Palestinians seems so hopeless, it is something that has to be pursued. It's the only effective means of defusing hatred of Israel in the reason. Otherwise the new boss will be the same as the old boss.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 16, 2008 3:29 PM

Dilan:

Are you writing some kind of foreign language? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Robert Powell:

You compare the Palestinians to displaced Germans. Nobody in the Middle East does. Plenty of groups have been displaced, not "gotten over it" and been redeemed. We're some Jews supposedly displaced about 2000 years ago? Believe what you want, but Egypt's government has no reason to prevent Egyptians from accepting Israel. Iran went a full generation under the Shah, but Iranians never accepted Israel. Your thesis that the Muslim belief that Israel represents an injustice is artificially imposed or sustained by governments is demonstrably false.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 16, 2008 4:36 PM

Arnold, I will try to make it simpler.

You claim that attacking Iran will get decrease the power of a horrible anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying regime.

But you are missing the point that there is, unfortunately, nothing unique about the current Iranian regime's attitudes about Jews. Many of the other major regimes in the region, including a number of US allies, use the same rhetoric, and there's a good likelihood that any regime that replaced the current regime in Iran would also espouse similar rhetoric. Anti-Israel, and to a somewhat lesser extent, anti-Semitic sentiment is POPULAR among Muslims in the middle east. So you aren't likely to see any improvement on that front even if you manage to depose Ahmadinejad or even Ali Khameni.

It happens that Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel and anti-Semitic beliefs have been seized upon by hawks in Israel and the US, but they are actually rather typical of many leaders in the region, even
the more "moderate" ones.

If you want to do something about this sort of rhetoric in that region, the only thing I can see that has a chance of working is pursuing peace with the Palestinians. And that is, of course, a long shot, and among the reasons it is a long shot are many things (e.g., Palestinian terrorism) that you and I might agree on. The problem is that none of the alternatives will work any better.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 16, 2008 5:09 PM

You claim that attacking Iran will get decrease the power of a horrible anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying regime.

Not even remotely. Didn't read the rest. You may be directing this at someone other than me.

Posted by Arnold Evans | July 16, 2008 6:13 PM

Re Hameed

And nuclear tipped Jehrico missiles will reduce Tehran to a hole in the ground in 10 minutes.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM

Re Hameed

Like the blogs favorite bank robber, Mr. hameed likes to cite the anti-Iraq wars' favorite child molester, Scott Ritter. Attached is a link to a CNN report on Mr. Ritters' arrest in Albany for soliciting sex with what he thought was a 16 year old girl but was actually part of a sting operation. He was fortunate he wasn't caught on film by Jim Hansen and his boys from Dateline.

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 7:14 PM

Re Hameed

Like the blogs favorite bank robber, Mr. hameed likes to cite the anti-Iraq wars' favorite child molester, Scott Ritter. Attached is a link to a CNN report on Mr. Ritters' arrest in Albany for soliciting sex with what he thought was a 16 year old girl but was actually part of a sting operation. He was fortunate he wasn't caught on film by Jim Hansen and his boys from Dateline.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/26/ritter.arrest/

Posted by SLC | July 16, 2008 7:16 PM

SLC:

I think Ritter's behavior in that case was despicable, and I wouldn't mind if he rot in jail for a number of years for it, but do you really think that has anything to do with whether his statements in his capacity as a weapons inspector are reliable? Especially since he turned out to be a lot more right than a lot of other people about Saddam's WMD?

It seems to me that bringing up the child molesting stuff is a tacit concession that you don't have any better arguments against Ritter's positions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 16, 2008 7:58 PM

Given Ritter's opposition to the Iraq war, it's fairly clear the entire sting was politically motivated.

Anybody remember Valerie Plame? These fucks in the White House - scum like SLC - were willing to shut down an entire anti-proliferation operation to allow their scumbag Turkish and Israeli friends to keep selling nuclear materials on the black market.

And SLC thinks this sting is legit. When SLC doesn't have less on, he has MORE-ON!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 16, 2008 9:58 PM

I don't deny that Muslim feelings about the legitimacy of Israel have some foundation. Ditto for the feelings of Poles about the "justice" of Wilno belonging to Lithuania, Lwow to Ukraine, of Germans about Stettin and Breslau belonging to Poland, etc., etc. These feelings and a couple of bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks.

The point is, whether one likes it or not Israel is as much a legitimate country as any currently in the General Assembly, and arguably more so than some. The opinions of various rank and file people about this legitimacy is not going to be the determining factor in international law.

Moreover, once the relentless propaganda and government-sponsored war-drum beating stops this sort of issue quickly recedes into the background for most people in the Middle East who, like people everywhere, are a lot more concerned about their daily struggles than with grand geopolitical theories.

Posted by robert powell | July 17, 2008 4:45 AM

Re robert powell

One might also add the grievances of Native Americans toward Europeans who stole their land. The Government of Israel will go out of business as desired by Mr. Evans when he returns the property on which his residence stand to its Native American rightful owners.

Re Richard Steven Hack

Mr. Hack obviously hasn't read the article posted. The sting operation was conducted in 2001 by local police and had nothing to do with the federal government. If Mr. Hack was familiar with Jim Hanson and Dateline, he would be aware that such sting operations, conducted by local law enforcement have been going on for years. Mr. Ritter was unfortunate in that he got caught. I would be willing to bet that this was not the first time he engaged in such activity, as virtually all the miscreants caught by the Dateline stings are repeat offenders.

However, let us evaluate Mr. Hacks claim that the sting operation was, in fact, directed specifically against Mr. Ritter and was politically motivated. So what? Mr. Ritter took the bait and swallowed it whole. The target in question informed Mr. Ritter that she was 14 years old and thus jail bait. That only made her more attractive to Mr. Ritter. If Mr. Ritter had been an upstanding honest citizen, he would have shut down the conversation immediately, if not sooner.

Re Dilan Esper

I would feel a lot more confidence in Mr. Ritter if he would admit that he made a mistake, has seen the error of his ways, and has repented. However, instead, he has refused to discuss the issue, and has hid behind his lawyers. For all we know, the only remorse that Mr. Ritter feels is that he got caught.

Posted by SLC | July 17, 2008 9:49 AM

SLC repeats the fanciful notion that a "local" police sting can't be politically motivated by either the locals or the Federal cops. That's a joke in itself.

Then he proclaims that therefore everything the sting reports claim is completely credible and proven - despite the fact that the charges were dismissed and nothing happened to Ritter.

As Justin Raimondo's reports of the case says:

"Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up?

Anybody who doesn't believe that Ritter was specifically targeted on account of his political activities needs to seek help: that sort of naivete can be terminal, and the patient probably shouldn't be trusted to cross the street unattended."

I'd say that definitely applies to SLC, who is however not terminally naive - just a terminal asshole.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 17, 2008 9:49 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

One should really get a kick out of Mr. Hack citing a nutcase like Justin Raimondo who is an antisemitic left wing fascist cocksucker and conspiracy monger who is about as reliable as his fellow fag Matt Drudge or his fellow antisemite Don Black. Attached is a profile of Mr. Raimondo.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1E39E2B4-95CE-40D5-AD56-C50822DE1FBC

Now of course, Mr. Hack will attack frontpagemag as a right wing source but sometimes it takes a thief to catch a thief and it is no more unreliable then is Mr. Raimondo.

The fact is that these internet sting operations to catch pedophiles like Scott Ritter have been going on for years as this is a growing problem on the internet. Anybody who thinks that this is funny, as Mr. Hack apparently does, should watch Jim Hanson on Dateline where these scumbags turn up expecting to meet 14 year old girls or boys for sex. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mr. Hack showing up some day as 14 year old boys are about his speed.

Posted by SLC | July 17, 2008 11:32 PM

Moreover, once the relentless propaganda and government-sponsored war-drum beating stops this sort of issue quickly recedes into the background for most people in the Middle East

If the tables got turned somehow and the Israeli Jews got ran out into garbage dumps with some remaining portion living under an Arab military rule where they spent half their lives being screwed with at checkpoints because LEHI and the old zionist terrorist groups had gotten back together...

That would be the news, all day, all the time, and there would be a nice chunk of Americans screaming that we needed to kill some folks over it.

I wish it wasn't so, but don't bullshit yourself about how sane you are.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 18, 2008 12:21 AM

Re Ed Marshall

If Mr. Marshalls' wet dream came true, we would expect to see him leading the cheering section.

Posted by SLC | July 18, 2008 8:23 AM

I'm rooting for a world community in which people have a right to live where they want without fear of ethnic cleansing no matter what group they think they belong to, Mr. Marshall. I'm not holding my breath, but I do think that wherever it comes up, we should try to reinforce, and if necessary enforce, the norms that make this reality possible in many nations today, including a many where it was not possible relatively recently.

If the Israeli Jews got "run out", they'd get a damned sight better treatment from their co-religionists than the Arab states have afforded the Pals, who have been warehoused like livestock for use as cheap labor, bargaining chips, and terrorist recruits for over half a century.

Israel is responsible for the plight of the "Palestinians" only up to a point, and is unable to unilaterally relieve it short of national suicide. That's an unlikely prospect in a genuine democracy like Israel, and I don't see any reason we should be pushing them to accept it.

Posted by robert powell | July 18, 2008 1:26 PM

Of Course, Iran working towards Nuclear weapons.

Can you blame them for it? Two national governments on their borders have been overthrown. Israel has threatened them with air strikes…

A Nuclear Weapon is a defensive weapon.

Ever notice that North Korea and Pakistan can resist the United States,,, What do they have in common?
They are both Nuclear Powers.

It is simple bigotry that Iran is not being allowed to develop atomic weapons. Why shouldn’t an Islamic hereditary theocracy be allowed to build I.C.B.M.s?

A nuclear middle-east will be a peaceful middle-east because of Mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction kept the peace between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades.

Atomic bombs are defensive weapons because they make victory impossible for anyone.

Nuclear proliferation is going to happen sooner or later any way.
Technology always spreads. Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese, but now everyone has it. Even the most isolated illiterate tribesman carrys an assualt rifle when he goes to war.

In the future, every Mullah, Latin American Generalismo, and African Warlord will have the ability to hurl nuclear weapons at one another. But, they will also be threatened with the same thing coming back at them. War shall become obsolete and peace shall prevail.

Support Iran, Support Nuclear Proliferation, Support World Peace.

Posted by Thinking Dove | July 20, 2008 3:40 PM