robert spencer has taken reza aslan to task for comments aslan made in an article entitled "stop building, bibi!" in the october 5 edition of the daily beast. in that article, aslan argues that the u.s. of a. loses respect in the arba world when it cannot curb israeli building in the "settlements," and when, for instance, it cannot somehow put the permanent kibosh on israel contemplating/planning/protecting its sovereign interests by carrying out a preemptive strike on iran's nuclear weapons facilities.
aslan is attributed as arguing in this last particular, will anyone take u.s. might and influence seriously if it cannot "... dissuade israel from ... launching a preemptive military strike on iran -- an attack that would have catastrophic consequences for america's political and economic interests in the region."
well, the disingenuity of it all, to suggest that america dictate to israel its policies for securing its very existence from nuclear attack, as it thinks best. or, even more disingenuously, that any state would be dictated to in respect to its very survival. but, he bravely soldiers forth were only fools dare leap, and further asserts that such an attack would damage u.s. interests. he voices no argument or facts in support of this assertion, largely, i believe because they do not exist or are no availing of his point.
at any rate, i submitted the following comment on this naked assertion of aslan's, and found it wanting in fact and in theory. follows the comment, and you can make up your own mind.--
john jay @ 10.06.2010
...................................................................
robert, friends:
why should this knot head get by with the categorical assertion that an israeli attack on the iranian nuclear facilities would have "catastrophic consequences" for u.s. political and economic interests in the middle east, and the rest of the muslim world?
why does this go unchallenged, especially given that it is so demonstrably wrong headed?
first and foremost, an israeli air attack on the iranian facilities does not happen unless the israelis have permission from the sauds, and quite likely the iraqis, for "fly over" of air space. israel fighters/attack craft could fight their way across the air space, but israel could not do so and escort the fuel tankers it needs for such a mission, ... , and that's that.
this means, per force, that for an israeli attack on iran's facilities to take place it will have secured diplomatic sanction/approval for it in advance, ... , all quite likely with american cooperation on the "q.t."
secondly, as a matter of general principle, saudi arabia is not going to meaningfully object to such an attack, and would in a strategic sense welcome it, as it would welcome any weakening in iran's strength and influence in the region.
thirdly, jordan is not going to get all worked up into a lather over the prospect of a de-horned iran, and certainly after its experience with the p.l.o. and yasser arafat, is not going to view any weakening of hezbollah with any disfavor.
fourthly, egypt which has born the brunt of previous pan-arabic conflict with israel will not get into too much of a froth seeing iran taken down a notch or two.
finally, we arrive at syria and turkey.
as to syria, who gives a shit what the chinless wonder thinks, besides harry reid and nancy pelosi.
as to the turks, the turks will view an axis with iran after an attack takes out its nuclear facilities as not so desirable, simply on the basis of pragmatism. no use hitching your wagon to a disabled star, will go the reasoning. and, simply on the basis of other political expediencies, such as membership in the euro union gravy train, the turks will follow the path of prudence.
so much for the arab/muslim side of the analysis.
now, how will our euro union brothers react to this. as they always do, they will criticize us in public, but on the diplomatic and military channels, they will be quite relieved to see iran divested of its nuclear pretensions.
as to the chinese, ... , this will be a bit of a set back in their plans to project diplomatic influence into the region, but they play the long game and are patient, and they will have well developed contingencies for such an eventuality: prudence dictates this be so, when the eventuality consider is so close to be quite probable, given that israel has to chose to strike or face the chance of extinction.
as to the russians, ... , if you've a brain in your head, as the russians most certainly do, you will have noticed that moscow is well within range of iranian missiles being now developed, and that such missiles are not be made without the capability of having nukes on them.
and, you will have noticed, if you are russian, that the --stans have always been hard to hold and control, and you will not welcome the advent of an iranian presence and influence in the --stans, as you already suspects iran's hand in chechnya. (or, if you are russian, you sure as hell think this way, as you brood away the dark winters in moscow.)
and, finally, you don't want iran playing "oil diplomacy" in these regions.
no, the russians may piss and moan a little bit over an israeli strike into iran against the nukes, but not so very much.
in close, i think, therefore, our little reza to be absolutely and totally full of shit when it comes to this aspect of his argument, especially in the context of what posture engenders respect in the cold, nasty and brutish little world of ours. strength, in this context, is neither unwelcome nor unexpected among the observers of this little morality play, ... , and, nobody, but nobody, will be either surprised or mad (in any serious sense) over israel taking out the iranian nukes.
i am surprised that so many did not take the little jerk to task over this, as it is a bulwark to his argument.
john jay
milton freewater, oregon usa
Comments