What I mean is, has the Washington Consensus regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program or aid to Israel shifted substantially since Clinton took office? Since Bush? Since Obama? Is it likely to change significant;y in 2016?
[/quote]
For one thing the US has the world’s most powerful bunker busters which are believed to be able to penetrate Iran’s underground enrichment facilities. A friendly US would provide those bombs to Israel rather than just saying, hey trust us! If ‘negotiations’ with Iran don’t work we’ll do it for you.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, what do you expect to happen if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions? Mutually ensured destruction dictates that Israel’s own nuclear arsenal (75-400 warheads) provides a substantial deterrent against nuclear attack.[/quote]
Absolutely. I mean, who wouldn’t want to play nuclear chicken with Islamic fundamentalists?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, what do you expect to happen if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions? Mutually ensured destruction dictates that Israel’s own nuclear arsenal (75-400 warheads) provides a substantial deterrent against nuclear attack.[/quote]
Absolutely. I mean, who wouldn’t want to play nuclear chicken with Islamic fundamentalists?[/quote]
Exactly, threat of death and destruction is not really a deterrent to people who believe that they will be rewarded in the after life for committing such an act that results in their deaths.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Regardless, what do you expect to happen if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions? Mutually ensured destruction dictates that Israel’s own nuclear arsenal (75-400 warheads) provides a substantial deterrent against nuclear attack.[/quote]
Absolutely. I mean, who wouldn’t want to play nuclear chicken with Islamic fundamentalists?[/quote]
THIS.
Mutual deterrence does not work against crazy suicidal folks.
From Iran’s perspective, why shouldn’t it seek to develop a nuclear umbrella? Maximizing its power relative to its peers is a perfectly rational course of action for it to undertake.
Firstly, the international system is characterized by anarchy. That is, there is no political actor above states to regulate their behavior toward each other. Consequently, states exist in a self-help world.
Secondly, all states possess some measure of offensive military capability, though some possess markedly greater capabilities than others.
Thirdly, states can never be certain about other states? intentions. This inherent uncertainty breeds fear and suspicion.
Fourthly, survival is the first and foremost goal of states. Of course, they have other goals, but they are predicated upon their continued existence as sovereign political units.
Fifthly, states are rational actors that understand the perilous nature of the system they inhabit, and thus they are motivated to act strategically to ensure their survival in it.
Taken together, these assumptions provide powerful incentives for states to adopt offensive mindsets and methodologies because the best way for a state to survive in anarchy is to take advantage of other states and gain power at their expense. The best defense is a good offense. Since this message is widely understood, ceaseless security competition ensues.
I agree thoroughly with all your premises except the last. There is no doubt most states are rational actors, however I do have doubts about the most extreme, and the most theocratic. I remain unconvinced in this circumstance. If we were talking Russia, China, or most NyeEuropean country–or South American for that matter–I would agree readily.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
From Iran’s perspective, why shouldn’t it seek to develop a nuclear umbrella? Maximizing its power relative to its peers is a perfectly rational course of action for it to undertake.
[/quote]
Well no it’s only rational if they have hostile designs upon their neighbours. That’s why Norway and Denmark and Sweden don’t want nuclear weapons.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
From Iran’s perspective, why shouldn’t it seek to develop a nuclear umbrella? Maximizing its power relative to its peers is a perfectly rational course of action for it to undertake.
[/quote]
Well no it’s only rational if they have hostile designs upon their neighbours. That’s why Norway and Denmark and Sweden don’t want nuclear weapons.[/quote]
Neutrality is a tool of the weak. Also, those states, like many in Europe, are free-riders of the American security apparatus. Ach, that wasn’t very European of me. I must be a half-assed nationalist.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
From Iran’s perspective, why shouldn’t it seek to develop a nuclear umbrella? Maximizing its power relative to its peers is a perfectly rational course of action for it to undertake.
[/quote]
Well no it’s only rational if they have hostile designs upon their neighbours. That’s why Norway and Denmark and Sweden don’t want nuclear weapons.[/quote]
Neutrality is a tool of the weak. Also, those states, like many in Europe, are free-riders of the American security apparatus. Ach, that wasn’t very European of me. I must be a half-assed nationalist.[/quote]
It would be a very interesting world to see how European countries respond to their surroundings and policy with a withdrawn American security apparatus.
Although it seems Switzerland has produced anything but a weak position from neutrality. One could argue they have a rather strong position controlling such a large swath of nations’ and private companies’ fiscal funds.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
From Iran’s perspective, why shouldn’t it seek to develop a nuclear umbrella? Maximizing its power relative to its peers is a perfectly rational course of action for it to undertake.
[/quote]
Well no it’s only rational if they have hostile designs upon their neighbours. That’s why Norway and Denmark and Sweden don’t want nuclear weapons.[/quote]
Neutrality is a tool of the weak. Also, those states, like many in Europe, are free-riders of the American security apparatus. Ach, that wasn’t very European of me. I must be a half-assed nationalist.[/quote]
It would be a very interesting world to see how European countries respond to their surroundings and policy with a withdrawn American security apparatus.
Although it seems Switzerland has produced anything but a weak position from neutrality. One could argue they have a rather strong position controlling such a large swath of nations’ and private companies’ fiscal funds. [/quote]
Of course Switzerland’s topography has helped maintain its neutrality as much as its defacto position as banker of the world.
But a Europe without American influence would likely see nuclear proliferation among the nations that already have the bomb (France and Britain) and likely a reluctant but inevitable development of a nuclear program by Germany.
Now that would be the irony to end all ironies: all of Europe protected by French, British and German weapons, administered by the Belgians.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bismark, why did you change your screen name?[/quote]
Because: Can a fishy troll also be a creme-filled donut?[/quote]
Yet, I understand system polarity. A concept that continues to escape you. I wonder what international politics looks like through the eyes of someone who genuinely believes and authoritatively states that there were “three hegemons” in Asia during the Cold War. I would imagine that it’s the international relations equivalent of a finger painting.
