It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[Razgovory]

This sounds very much like a military raid, not unlike where POWs are rescued during wartime.  Do you disagree with that characterization?

Are you arguing that it's smart for Iran to build nukes, because we tried to rescue the embassy hostages?

I'm arguing that the US and Iran have been enemies since the Iranian Revolution, and in that period there has been actual fighting and threats against one another.  They kidnapped our diplomatic staff, attacked an embassy and a marines barracks through proxies and we've sunk some of their ships and shot down their planes etc.  The threat of attacks is by no means recent, and real blood has been shed all prior to George W. Bush's speech.  I do not think they are building a nuke as some sort of national suicide vest (which using it to attack Israel, even by Proxy would be), but as a defensive measure against it's enemies, a prestige item to bolster the government, and a tool for regional hegemony.  This doesn't strike me as irrational, and our efforts to prevent them from getting a nuke aren't irrational either.  However, if we are to counter them, we have to understand why they want it, and ascribing incorrect motives is counterproductive.

[Razgovory]

  If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time. 

Only true if each year's annual chance of attack is completely independent of the next year's probability which is obviously false; i.e. it works only if you assume the "US" (its interests/outlooks/personnel/policy apparatus) completely and randomly resets every year.

How would you judge the chances of military action against Iran on any given year?

[garbon]

Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said.

Well not when you post it over and over again.  JR's argument is based on increasing and decreasing the chance of an attack.  He claims that building the bomb actually increases the chance of attack, though this is by no means certain.  If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time.  If having a bomb eliminates that chance, but increases the chance of attack while the bomb is being built then it may very well be rational to accept a short period of additional risk.

Why would Iran having a nuclear bomb eliminate the chance of the US attacking?

[Berkut]

You mentioned Axis of evil, the current letter and "various statements made by politicians."

Are you really arguing that the Axis of Evil speech was the start of the US-Iranian tensions?

You do realize that stuff happened before that, and the speech was a RESULT of that relationship, not the genesis of it?

You really tie yourself up in knots justifying support for this stuff.

[Admiral Yi]

What stuff am I tying myself into knots supporting Berkut?

[Malthus]

It would be interesting to analyze the rational reasons for a mid-range regional power like Iran for having nukes - I suspect strongly that it boils down to a matter of prestige (both domestic and international), rather than for any real military use. The very term "a nuclear power" connotes a country that has to be taken more seriously than one that is not.

The problem with Iran is the lingering suspicion that at least some elements within the government may be thinking of irrational reasons for having them.

[Berkut]

I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.

Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.

A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.

A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.

[Jacob]

Yeah exactly, Berkut, and that remains true whatever happened with the hostages in Tehran back in the day. It remains true independently of the exact motivations for Iran starting the nuclear program when they started it.

[Malthus]

I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.

Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.

A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.

A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.   

[Razgovory]

Is that actually a response to Joan's posts as it doesn't really seem to address anything he said.

Well not when you post it over and over again.  JR's argument is based on increasing and decreasing the chance of an attack.  He claims that building the bomb actually increases the chance of attack, though this is by no means certain.  If there is chance every year that US will attack Iran then eventually the US will attack given enough time.  If having a bomb eliminates that chance, but increases the chance of attack while the bomb is being built then it may very well be rational to accept a short period of additional risk.

Why would Iran having a nuclear bomb eliminate the chance of the US attacking?

Because they can hit back.  Has the US ever openly attacked a nuclear power?

[Jacob]

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.

That's a great argument for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Don't know how likely that is, though.

[DontSayBanana]

Listening to Netanyahu's interview on NPR this morning was a hoot.  They called him out for lying on the air no less than three times:

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/20/394191261/transcript-nprs-interview-with-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu

From the typical political doublespeak:

Americans are aware that just before the election you made a statement on Israeli radio that there would indeed not be a Palestinian state were you to remain as prime minister; that you were against a Palestinian state. Is that still your position?

N: Well, actually, what I said was that under the present circumstances, I said today it's unachievable because I had laid out very clearly what my conditions were for a two-state solution in the 2009 speech I gave at Bar-Ilan University. And I haven't changed; I haven't retracted that speech, at all. I said that the implementation of that vision is not relevant right now because of two things. First the decision of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority last year to forge a pact with Hamas, which is a terrorist organization that works for our destruction.

...to the outright lie:

SI: I want to ask another question, Prime Minister Netanyahu. While we were reporting in Israel, we heard people in Israel on the left and on the right openly worry about Israel's increasing international isolation, particularly because the conflict with Palestinians has gone on and on and there has not been the establishment of a Palestinian state. How concerned are you about Israel's international isolation?

N: Well, look. I think that there is a misperception. Israel has done enormous amount of, for peace. I myself have done things that no prime minister previously had done. I had frozen the settlements. Nobody did that. And I think, you know, the ones that have to be convinced are not only the international communities, the people of Israel will have to be convinced that the Palestinians are ready for peace. The leaders of Iran, just in the last few days have said that they would arm the West Bank and turn it into another Gaza. What the people of Israel are saying, "Hey, make sure that doesn't happen again." And if that is misperceived in some parts of the international community that's unfortunate, but I think that that's the truth.

SI: I have to just check a fact here, Prime Minister. You said that you froze settlements. It is correct that during your time as prime minister there was a period of months where there was a moratorium on settlements.

N: That's right.

SI: But when I was traveling around the West Bank we saw construction everywhere, construction cranes everywhere. There's plenty of building going on today.

N: Well, first of all, remember that 90 percent, 85 to 90 percent of Israeli citizens in Judea-Samaria, in the West Bank, live in clusters, in urban blocks. Everybody understands that if we were to have a solution then those blocks would stay in Israel. And that's where you saw these cranes; that's where Israelis live. In the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, everybody understands, they will stay.

SI: I saw cranes outside of Jerusalem. I'm thinking of Ariel, for example.

N: Those are, well, the blocks are outside of Jerusalem, that's exactly true. And what I'm saying is that the map is not affected by that. The critical problem we have is not merely where the borders will be but what will be on the other side of the border. Do we walk out and the Islamists walk in, backed by Iran, as happened in Gaza, as happened in Lebanon, as is happening in other parts of the Middle East. They're either backed by Iran or they're backed by al-Qaida or, if you will, by ISIS.

...to covering his butt getting busted with a lie by retconning the question on the fly:

SI: We spoke with Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian negotiator, and he said, first, directly in the interview "I recognize the state of Israel." And second he said of you, Prime Minister Netanyahu, "he's not a two-stater." Are you a two-stater?

N: Well, I don't want a single state. And I talked about two states where a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state, and I stand by that. I haven't retracted my position; I haven't changed it.

SI: Erekat also warned of violence because Palestinians are losing hope. If you were talking to a group of Palestinians what, if anything, would you tell them to hope for in their futures?

N: I would tell them, let's build in your economy. Let's see that you actually recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, something Erekat refuses to do.

SI: But I'm saying that this man said, on the record, on tape, "I recognize Israel." What's he failing to say?

N: He's failing to say that he won't flood Israel with the descendants of Palestinian refugees.

[DontSayBanana]

Also, with the speed he was backpedalling on his comments about Arabs, they could probably hook up a generator to him, export the power to Iran, and get them to completely drop their nuclear program altogether.

[Razgovory]

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.

How about this scenario.  10 years in the future.  Iran has pacified Iraq and consolidated it's position there with military bases.  War breaks out against their hated rivals, the Saudis.  They invade Saudi Arabia.  In this intervening time period they have built a nuke and rocket capable of hitting the US.  Does the US want to risk the loss of a few million citizens to protect the Saudis?

[Ed Anger]

Ugh, NPR. I'm surprised Banana didn't slip into a coma while listening.