Jeffrey Goldberg, an analyst with exceptionally good connections in Israel, has written an article that predicts that Israel will attack Iran within the next 6 months. apparently, the Netanyahu government has decided that a carefully targeted attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities will not necessarily trigger a fierce Iranian counterattack. There are plenty of very good reasons to believe that Iran would not wish to widen a war, particularly if the counterattack brought an American response. But the subject and the predicate do not mesh: if Iran is crazy enough to want to obliterate Israel, why then would one make an assumption of a carefully calibrated response to a pre-emptive attack? I suspect that Israel does not actually fear a nuclear attack from Iran; rather it fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would limit its ability to use force with impunity in the region.
The assumption that the Iranians would not respond with vigor is not borne out by the war games the US has mapped out to predict what would happen if Israel attacked Iran. The discrepancy on outcomes between Israel and the US is deeply troubling.
The decision to go to war ought to be an incredibly complex one. In the past, we have seen decisions that reflected little more than short-term considerations. Here’s a very good framework for how one ought to think about such a monumental decision.
Paul Pillar, a Professor at Georgetown and former CIA analyst (and a friend of mine at Dartmouth many years ago), has written a very good essay on living with a nuclear-armed Iran. It is a long read, but well worth the time.
Revolutions are unpredictable. We still don’t know how many of the changes initiated by the Arab Spring will turn out. In Libya, the overthrow of Qaddafi was viewed as a successful humanitarian intervention. But it appears as if Libya might not hold together as a single state. Perhaps a fragmented Libya is a more viable nation-state, but it is likely that any secessionist movement will lead to more violence. The lure of oil profits will make the situation highly volatile.
The global arms race seems to be accelerating–a consequence of the emergence of new powers. India takes the top place as the world’s largest importer of arms. The arms race between India and China is going to be something to watch carefully.
Many are concerned by the slow economic recovery after the financial crisis of 2008-09. Some suspect that growth after a financial crisis will always be slow since it takes a long time for people to pay off the debts that they accumulated during the “bubble” years. There is, however, a more disquieting thread in some economic analyses; some suspect that high rates of economic growth may never return to the mature economies such as the US, Europe, and Japan. The Atlantic gives us a hint of this perspective.
A little more information on credit default swaps from my favorites financial blogger, Barry Ritholz.
Yet another self-immolation in an area of China populated by Tibetans–the 2nd this week and the 30th this year. It appears as if these protests are becoming more prominent, perhaps a sign that a movement is building.
Argentina has enlisted the support of other Latin American nations in its dispute with Great Britain over the Falklands/Malvinas islands. The ruling to support Argentina in the oil exploration dispute is probably not binding, but it will complicate the efforts to explore for oil. Oil companies will be reluctant to spend money in an ambiguous legal environment.
The prominent newspaper in Lebanon, The Daily Star, is reporting that a majority of the Cabinet Ministers in the Israeli government now favors an attack on Iran. The number of news reports on this particular issue has died down recently–since Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the US. As I’ve indicated before, the amount of “chatter” about a particular policy is a good index of how seriously it is being considered. Let’s hope that the number of news reports increases dramatically soon.
North Korea has announced that it intends to launch a satellite. Since the missile technology for launching a satellite is the same as launching a warhead, the West is threatening to withdraw its earlier offer of food aid in return for a halt to the North Korean nuclear program. The response raises some critical issues: does non-proliferation mean more than just nuclear bombs? is the West refining or reneging on its earlier deal? There are many ambiguities being raised right now.
A big shake-up in the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Bo Xilai, Chinese Communist Party chief in the municipality of Chongqing, was fired from his position, although we don’t yet know if he was also purged from the Politburo. Mr. Bo was an up and coming leader who did not fit the mold of the traditional Chinese part official–he craved publicity and was regarded as someone who wished the party to return to more Mao-like policies (in the US, we would probably use the term “populist” to describe his policies even though the term doesn’t quite make sense in terms of Chinese politics). Leaders like Mr. Bo don’t usually disappear for long–we’ll have to see how he charts his return.
There is a little bit of movement in Syria. The UN has announced it is sending a humanitarian mission to Syria to assess the situation. We’ll see how much access the UN Team has and how cooperative the Assad regime is. I am not optimistic, but would be overjoyed to be wrong on this.
The nuclear equivalent of economic sanctions has been leveled against Iran: it has been banned from electronic banking transactions. Now no Iranian banks will be able to conduct transactions with non-Iranian banks, leaving only the option of barter, gold, or short-term promissory notes. The Iranian economy is already in pretty rough shape because of the earlier sanctions; these new restrictions will squeeze the Iranian people even more. Now a diplomatic solution to the nuclear program impasse looks a little more promising.
The Guardian, a British newspaper, received thousands of emails purportedly from the Assad family in Syria. We will have to wait until the authenticity of the emails is verified, but reading them is quite chilling. They portray a family completely out of touch with what is going on in Syria. The disconnect between a government and its people powerfully explains why the people of Syria have risked so much to change the government.
James Fallows, a defense analyst who writes for The Atlantic, has gone out on a limb and predicted that there will be no attack on Iran. His core argument, not made until the end of the essay, is that the Iranian matter was plumped up by Netanyahu to divert attention away from the Palestinian issue. His analysis is intriguing a worth a close read.
The US Defense Department spends a lot of money protecting the Middle Eastern oil fields. But it is also a huge consumer of the oil it protects. In fact, the US Department of Defense is the single largest consumer of petroleum in the world. Is the dog wagging the tail or vice-versa?
The atrocities in Syria continue to mount. The most recent reports suggest the systematic killing and raping of civilians by the Syrian military. Whether these reports will move Russia and China remains to be seen. Even if those two states do ultimately support come sort of intervention, it is not clear what shape that intervention would take.
The Greeks are being asked to cut even more. This process cannot have a good ending–the only question is which bad ending will emerge: revolution? complete social disintegration? the end of the EU?
Forbes magazine has published its list of the world’s richest people. There are 1,226 billionaires worth $4.6 trillion. That’s 7% of the world’s total wealth held by 0.000000175% of the world’s population. (not a quiz post)
Stephen Walt, my favorites realist, has a great critique on how the media has handled the Iranian nuclear issue. Walt asks great questions and is appropriately skeptical.
The massacre of Afghan civilians by an American soldier is perhaps the end of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. The troops will not be precipitously withdrawn, but it is hard to imagine what their future missions might be like. There is certainly no opportunity for a policy of capturing hearts and minds.
There are many contesting territorial claims in the South China Sea, and the region has seen frequent military clashes as different countries have tried to establish their credentials as legitimate owners. Vietnam is trying a new approach that will certainly provoke a Chinese response over the Spratley Islands.
I am a big fan of unorthodox thinking, but I think I reached my limit in an article in The Atlantic entitled “How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change.” At some point, many of you might find yourselves pondering these questions seriously. (not a quiz post).
The quiz on 14 March will be on the blog articles from 8-12 March 2012 and the FDR memo to Cordell Hull, 24 January 1944.
World Politics News 