“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms. 

It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East. 


The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three different ways. First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so. 

Punishing a state through economic sanctions does not inexorably derail its nuclear program. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and UN Security Council resolutions. If Tehran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind. In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection of the ultimate deterrent. 

The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice. 

Such a breakout capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation). The problem is that a breakout capability might not work as intended. 
The United States and its European allies are primarily concerned with weaponization, so they might accept a scenario in which Iran stops short of a nuclear weapon. Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It is possible, then, that a verifiable commitment from Iran to stop short of a weapon could appease major Western powers but leave the Israelis unsatisfied. Israel would be less intimidated by a virtual nuclear weapon than it would be by an actual one and therefore would likely continue its risky efforts at subverting Iran's nuclear program through sabotage and assassination -- which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks. 

The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less. 

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge.

Of course, it is easy to understand why Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and why it is willing to use force to secure that status. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term.

Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.


One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise. 

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear. 

Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself). Iran may be intransigent at the negotiating table and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation. Iran's leaders did not, for example, attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz despite issuing blustery warnings that they might do so after the EU announced its planned oil embargo in January. The Iranian regime clearly concluded that it did not want to provoke what would surely have been a swift and devastating American response to such a move.

Nevertheless, even some observers and policymakers who accept that the Iranian regime is rational still worry that a nuclear weapon would embolden it, providing Tehran with a shield that would allow it to act more aggressively and increase its support for terrorism. Some analysts even fear that Iran would directly provide terrorists with nuclear arms. The problem with these concerns is that they contradict the record of every other nuclear weapons state going back to 1945. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe Iran would break this mold. 
As for the risk of a handoff to terrorists, no country could transfer nuclear weapons without running a high risk of being found out. U.S. surveillance capabilities would pose a serious obstacle, as would the United States' impressive and growing ability to identify the source of fissile material. Moreover, countries can never entirely control or even predict the behavior of the terrorist groups they sponsor. Once a country such as Iran acquires a nuclear capability, it will have every reason to maintain full control over its arsenal. After all, building a bomb is costly and dangerous. It would make little sense to transfer the product of that investment to parties that cannot be trusted or managed. 

Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term "proliferation" means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred; in fact, since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states. There is no reason to expect that this pattern will change now. Should Iran become the second Middle Eastern nuclear power since 1945, it would hardly signal the start of a landslide. When Israel acquired the bomb in the 1960s, it was at war with many of its neighbors. Its nuclear arms were a much bigger threat to the Arab world than Iran's program is today. If an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now.


In 1991, the historical rivals India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities. They realized that far more worrisome than their adversary's nuclear deterrent was the instability produced by challenges to it. Since then, even in the face of high tensions and risky provocations, the two countries have kept the peace. Israel and Iran would do well to consider this precedent. If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small. No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.

For that reason, the United States and its allies need not take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy between Iran and the major powers should continue, because open lines of communication will make the Western countries feel better able to live with a nuclear Iran. But the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped: they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose. 

Most important, policymakers and citizens in the Arab world, Europe, Israel, and the United States should take comfort from the fact that history has shown that where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability. When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better.


  1. There are over 10,000 nuclear weapons in the world ...
    The only country to have ever used one in combat, the US.

    It had a monopoly on the technology when it did.
    Once the Soviet had nuclear weapon technology, they were not utilized again, anywhere, by anyone.

    MAD works.

  2. Israel has been and continues to be a liability to the US. Netanyahu and The Lobby has viciously and seditiously moved to destroy anyone that even attempts to analyze the true cost to the US of this toxic relationship. Stability in the Middle East is a US interest and it is an interest where Israel has been determined to undermine. No matter how tightly the Lobby wraps itself with the American flag, it is an agent for Israel. There is no interest in the welfare of the US or its people unless it happens to be congruent with the expansionist goal of a greater Israel.

    A nuclear deal with Iran will prove that Iran will be a far more reliable asset to peace and Israel knows it. Netanyahu will do whatever he can get away with in his attempt to derail US policy toward a rapprochement with Iran.

    This article by Foreign Affairs is about as sane an argument as I have read for the desirability of having a nuclear armed Israel balanced off by a rational actor in the ME.

    Fire at will.

    1. If only the Jews would commit suicide then we would have peace in our time...

      No thanks Deuce.

  3. Israel is in an existential fight, a fight to defend the lie that Iran is a threat to the ME and the US. Once that lie is exposed, Israel descends from its apogee of interference and influence over real US interests in the ME. It can’t happen soon enough for the long term interests of the US and ironically the long term existence and safety of a non-zionist Israel.


  4. Denmark chief rabbi rejects Netanyahu call to make aliyah

    - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

    1. Jews are fleeing Europe for Israel.

      That's a fact jack

    2. Is it a fact?
      Facts can be verified, so verify your claim, "O"rdure.
      Bring some facts, not mere agitprop, lies and propaganda.

      7,000 people left France and moved to Palestine, whether or not they were Jews, an open question.
      Whether they were fleeing Europe, or just moving to the Sun Belt, a matter of perspective.

    3. there is no "palestine" as a nation Jack.

      Now there is ISRAEL

      choke on it

    4. Regardless, France leads the European 'Exodus", and if 7,000 is the accurate number ...

      It does not put much of a dent in the Jewish population of Europe which is put at 1.4 million people by Antonia Blumberg
      at the Huffington Post.

      So those 'fleeing' Europe account for about than 1% of the Jewish population, not much of an Exodus.

    5. Thanks for your worthless input.

      Your advise? Not wanted or needed

      Your commentary? Stupid and filled with Jew hatred.

      My opinion?

      Jews are moving to Israel, Israel is and you can go fuck yourself.

      choke on it....

      in fact?

      I hope is causes you sleepless nights..

      Now I won't wish you to die of cancer as you have wished on folks at this blog....

      But let's just say I wish for your pathetic life? to increase in it's patheticness.

    6. As long as "O"rdure provides a foil, the target will be reached.

      The people in Europe are being subsidized to move to Palestine, by the Zionist government, there.
      And so few take 'em up on it.

      Guess they believe Bibi and do not want to die in the nuclear blast that will engulf Tel Aviv in eight weeks.

    7. Or they do not believe Bibi but the subsidy is not enough to move to a country ruled by a lying sociopath.

    8. There is no "palestine" Jack.

      there is a Nation called Israel

      choke on it.

  5. .

    IMO, the article is pollyannish beyond belief. The title says it all, Why Iran Should Get The Bomb. There is no reason why Iran should get the bomb. While the author does speaks some truths, his basic premise is false.

    Iran is not ally of the US or the West and I can't conceive of them being an ally of the US or the West any time soon. Everything they do is to expand the hegemony they are attempting to build in the ME. Iran is not the good guys of the ME. There are no good guys in the ME.

    However, the author does make one reasonable point,

    The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three different ways. First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so...

    The truth is no matter what shit we give them, a country with Iran's size, resources, and technological capabilities, if they are determined to get the bomb they will eventually get the bomb. The only issue is their intent.

    Whether we like it or not, whether we delay them or not, if they are really intent on getting a bomb, they will get it.


    1. Iran is not ally of the US or the West and I can’t conceive of them being an ally of the US or the West any time soon. Everything they do is to expand the hegemony they are attempting to build in the ME. Iran is not the good guys of the ME. There are no good guys in the ME.

      Neither was Germany an ally, nor was Japan and Italy was and wasn’t. Iran was an ally as was Russia. Neither are today. China was an ally, it is not today. Viet Nam was the enemy. Today it is not. Pakistan became a nuclear power against the will of the US and is an ally (sort of). The US opposed India having a nuclear weapon and now is engaging India as an ally. Turkey was an ally and isn’t.

      Israel is probably our most dangerous ally anywhere.

      The US has few allies in Central and South America and none of them, allies or not are dangerous to US interests. None of our allies in Europe are dangerous to US interests. Taiwan could have been at one time but they no longer have a lock on US support.

      You can disagree with the premise, but the case can be made that Israel with its murdering of Iranian scientists and the US economic and military aggression against Iran, provide reason enough for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon program of deterrence, because, as the author argues, they work. The only pollyanish part I see is that Israel feels entitled to believe it has some entitlement to a nuclear monopoly where no one else does.

    2. Sweden, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil and Chile are not allies of the US but provide far more benefits and far less danger than the absurdity we endure with Israel because of US politicians, supported by the Christian Right and their sycophancy with Israel.

    3. Regardless of your warped sense of worthiness of "allies"

      Iran getting a nuke? Will mean a nuclear arms race in middle east.

      And don't be so sure it will be Israel that will be nuking anyone 1st

      My guess? a nice iranian nuke over Sunni oil outlets?

      that's all it will take...

    4. To do what, "O"rdure?

      Lift the sanctions against Iran, allowing their oil to reach the global markets unfettered?
      That objective could be achieved peacefully, betcha it will be.

    5. Those 'nuked' oil wells would be back in production within 18 months.
      Probably less.

      The experience in Nagasaki makes that clear, there is no long term impact to a nuclear blast.
      Now, if it were not an air burst, there could b more, longer term, damage, but then the size of the area impacted is greatly diminished. And those pesky Iranians, they'd only have a couple of warheads, anyway.

    6. Jack, you are an expert at horse shit shoveling.

      Not the effects of an Iranian nuke on the oil shipping terminals and assets of the middle east

  6. Replies
    1. Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.

      1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

      1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

      1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

    2. Maybe 20 years of delaying the Iranian program has been successful..

      Jack knows shit...

  7. Benjamin Netanyahu, repeated his decade-old claim that “Iran is just six weeks away from building a nuclear weapon“.

    American Jewish writer and blogger, Stephen Lendman, in response to Netanyahu’s latest claim, called Netanyahu a serial liar.

    “Netanyahu is a serial liar. He is like Obama. Literally everything that comes out of his mouth has no credibility. He makes a statement at this conference to the effect that, everyone knows Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Well, in fact everybody in Israel in the know knows that Iran has no nuclear weapons program,”
    said Lendman.

    1. Well "anonymous"?

      Are you the leader of anything but your crew at the McDonalds?

  8. Finland has approved plans for a nuclear power plant to be built by Russia’s Rusatom Overseas with an $8.7 billion price tag, even though there are worsening economic relations between Russia and the rest of Europe.

    The reactor will be built in northern Finland for the Fennovoima power company, and financed by Russia’s state-controlled Rusatom. It is scheduled to begin operation in 2024.


  9. ‘Remember lessons we taught Hitler’
    : Top 10 quotes from Putin’s State of Nation address

  10. Israel's prime minister on Sunday called for the "massive immigration" of European Jews to Israel following a deadly shooting near Copenhagen's main synagogue, renewing a blunt message that has upset some of Israel's friends in Europe.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that at a time of rising anti-Semitism in Europe, Israel is the only place where Jews can truly feel safe. His comments triggered an angry response from Copenhagen's chief rabbi, Jair Melchior, who said he was "disappointed" by the remarks.

    "People from Denmark move to Israel because they love Israel, because of Zionism. But not because of terrorism," Melchior told The Associated Press. "If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island."

    Netanyahu issued his call during the weekly meeting of his Cabinet, which approved a previously scheduled $46 million plan to encourage Jewish immigration from France, Belgium and Ukraine — countries where large numbers of Jews have expressed interest in moving to Israel. France and Belgium have experienced deadly attacks on their Jewish communities in in recent years, most recently an attack in Paris last month that killed four Jews at a kosher market. Ukraine, meanwhile, is in the midst of a conflict between government troops and Russian-backed separatists.

    1. "Move to Israel and face a nuclear attack from Iran" - Bibi

    2. "Trust me, the Iranians are six weeks away from building a nuclear weapon which they will use it in a suicidal first strike against Israel. So move here and be safe from European antisemitism." - Bibi

    3. Nuke Iran now, since they have threatened Israel Repeatedly....

      NUKE them BEFORE they can build a bomb

  11. The Kurdish forces, supported by U.S.-led air strikes, drove Islamic State fighters from the town of Kobani last month near the Turkish border and have pushed them back from surrounding villages in northern Syria. Islamic State still holds tracts of land across northern and eastern Syria and into Iraq.

    Now the Kurds and other local fighters who oppose Islamic State have taken a hill south of Kobani which lies within Raqqa province - the stronghold of the al Qaeda offshoot in Syria, said the Observatory, which tracks the conflict through sources on the ground.

    "It is the first time they get into Raqqa," the Observatory's founder Rami Abdulrahman said.

  12. Two relatives including the uncle of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group, were detained on Sunday after a security operation near the city of Samarra, state-owned Iraqi television cited a security source as saying.

    “A group from the Regiment Special Assignments was able to arrest Baghdadi’s uncle, named Saleh Ibrahim Abdulmomen and niece’s husband Dhiya Nouri Sadoun,” the security source from the southern Dhi Qar governorate’s police said.

    “The detainees are among the top level of ISIS commanders in Samarra,” the source added.

    Meanwhile, Sheikh Oda al-Jughaifi from the western province of Anbar said on Sunday that a new military operation was launched to capture the Anbar province’s al-Baghdadi district from ISIS militants.

  13. I didn't say that SOMEONE is pretending to be me, I suggest the Rat Doctrine to be used against the Zio-Nazi entity.

    1. How coy, the racist Zionists need to be REMOVED from the stolen lands it squats on. Only when Israel and Jews are free of the racist ideology of ZIONISM will there be peace.

    2. Jack stands with Iran and Hamas, as does Deuce.

      I stand with America and Israel.

    3. You stand with Israel. You defended Israel on the attack on The Liberty. Your as American as a flag made in China.

    4. Deuce you stand with iran and hamas....

  14. Anti-Semitism often disguises itself as “anti-Zionism,” but, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, noted in a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, “[T]he policies of the state of Israel are not made in kosher supermarkets in Paris, or in Jewish cultural institutions in Brussels and Mumbai. The targets in those cities were not Israeli. They were Jewish.”

    Anti-Semitism often disguises itself as “anti-Zionism,” but, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former chief rabbi of the United Kingdom, noted in a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, “[T]he policies of the state of Israel are not made in kosher supermarkets in Paris, or in Jewish cultural institutions in Brussels and Mumbai. The targets in those cities were not Israeli. They were Jewish.”

    Read more:

  15. People have painted anti-Saudi/Arab slogans on houses in Wisconsin?

    Why would anyone not like the Semites, they are driving down the price of oil.

    Part of the problem, the Zionists have so tortured the English language, they must think it is Palestinian.

    1. "‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

      ‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."

      ‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

      The Zionist have adopted proto-Nazi propaganda as their own.
      That reality reveals their inner core, the fascist nature of their ideology.

    2. Just because you lie doesn't make it so..

      the true fascists of the middle east are the iranians, syrians and palestinians.

  16. Jack is a moron.

    Time for you to get some rest, Jack.

    You don't get enough rest.

    1. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, is that 'really' you?

    2. Wio, you were on the verge of being giddy about the three Muslim young people murdered by some crazes fanatic.

    3. Deuce ☂Sun Feb 15, 06:42:00 PM EST
      Wio, you were on the verge of being giddy about the three Muslim young people murdered by some crazes fanatic.

      Hardly "giddy"...

      Why put words in my mouth...

      Now as for "giddy" that's what you seem to be when some Jews somewhere are blown apart...

    4. LOL

      You found it comical, you were giddy, "O"rdure
      Your response was one of mirth, LOL.

    5. Love your out of CONTEXT report.

      try posting the entire post..

      or you are a liar.

  17. Breaking: ISIS releases video of 21 Christians being beheaded — in Libya
    posted at 3:36 pm on February 15, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

    Share on Facebook 196

    The horror show into which the Middle East has transformed over the last four years continues — and expands. ISIS released a videotape today showing not one beheading of a hostage, but the simultaneous beheadings of 21 Christian hostages. The beheadings took place not in Syria or Iraq, but in Libya:

    The terrorists known as ISIS released a video on Sunday that seems to show the militant group beheading 21 Egyptian Christians kidnapped in Libya.

    The Egyptians, dressed in orange jump suits, were beheaded after being forced down on the ground on a beach. An early caption in the video says the location is “Wilayat Tarabulus by the Mediterranean Sea,” which suggests that it was filmed near Tripoli.

    Each of the victims, who are all male, is paired with a masked, knife-wielding terrorist and, after a brief statement by the ISIS leader, they are all beheaded.

    Don’t expect to the see the video here, which was titled in part “A Message Signed in Blood.” The AP describes it so that the rest of us can pass on watching ISIS propaganda:

    The video, released late Sunday night, shows several men in orange jumpsuits being led along a beach, each accompanied by a masked militant. The men are made to kneel and one militant addresses the camera in English before the men are simultaneously beheaded.

    ISIS seems like an atrocity-junkie terrorist group, always attempting to outdo itself in savagery for its missives to the West. They’ve continually attempted to ramp up the brutality in its videos towards their bound hostages, amplifying their cowardice and cruelty. What they hope to accomplish is fright and flight, but what they’re likelier to get is more opposition and bigger headaches.

    Other than the butchery of peaceful Egyptian Copts, the most troublesome geopolitical aspect of this video is the location of the atrocities. Four years ago, this would have been impossible, as the fairly brutal Qaddafi regime had kept the terror networks underground. Thanks to the failed state that followed the war launched by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton against Moammar Qaddafi, ISIS has apparently won the loyalties of some of the militias that had been associated with al-Qaeda in the Maghreb. This shows once again why the West shouldn’t have gone to war in Libya without a massive ground force to fill the vacuum after the fall of the Qaddafi regime — and why it will take a large army to contain and destroy ISIS. In fact, this suggests that one large army may no longer be enough.

    Update: I forgot to include the link to the first report, which I’ve corrected above. One commenter scolds me for not including the word Islam in the post, but we’ve been writing about ISIS for long enough for readers to know it stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. I was trying to get a thread started as soon as possible after reading the news, so I didn’t spell it out — but then again, I hardly thought it was necessary.

    Update: (Jazz) You might think these idiots would learn their lesson from what happened with Jordan, but Egypt is responding in pretty much the same way.

    President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said on Sunday that Egypt reserved the right to respond in a way it sees fit to the Islamic State’s beheading of 21 Egyptians in neighboring Libya.

    Sisi warned Cairo would choose the “necessary means and timing to avenge the criminal killings”. He was speaking on national television hours after Islamic State released a video purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya.

    I know I’ve been an advocate for American action, but if these cretins tick off enough countries over there we might not need to bother.

    1. The killing of those Christians, truly an abomination.
      The perpetrators, truly barbaric.

      Must be why the Israeli would accept them taking power in Syria.

      Israel prefers Daesh (al-Qeada) in Syria, over the Alawites, Christians and their Kurdish allies

      Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

      “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

      Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
      “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

  18. Oh, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, did you notice that in the Kobane area those fighting Daesh have now expanded their territorial gains into the Raqqa province?

    More Rat Doctrine success !

  19. Cuba should have nuclear weapons. Fair is fair. They need them to defend themselves from the USA.

    For that matter Venezuela ought to have nuclear weapons too, for the same reason.

    It is only fair.

    We need more fairness in the world, and love all around.

    1. Following this line of thought out, the Islamic State should have nuclear weapons.

      They need them to defend themselves from the Christians and Jews, and the secularists, and women.

      Fair is fair.

      MAD will control ISIS.

      We can count on it.

    2. Islamic State Sprouting Limbs Beyond Its Base


      WASHINGTON — The Islamic State is expanding beyond its base in Syria and Iraq to establish militant affiliates in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt and Libya, American intelligence officials assert, raising the prospect of a new global war on terror.

      Intelligence officials estimate that the group’s fighters number 20,000 to 31,500 in Syria and Iraq. There are less formal pledges of support from “probably at least a couple hundred extremists” in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Yemen, according to an American counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information about the group.

      Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an assessment this month that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, was “beginning to assemble a growing international footprint.” Nicholas Rasmussen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, echoed General Stewart’s analysis in testimony before Congress last week.................

    3. Why Deuce, you are name calling.

      That is rat like.

      But I would reply in kind but you would take it down

      Will just say it has been years now since you have made much if any sense.

      Just the other day you told the folks to knock the arguing and name calling off so I will comply with that request.

    4. That is because they are al-Qeada branches that are changing their franchise, just as ISIL did.

      It is all al-Qeada, the folks the Israeli would accept taking power in Syria.
      If Bibi would accept them, how bad can they be?

      Well, the answer to that may not please our Israeli-firsters, but the question stands.
      Because the Daesh, al-Qeada, al-Qeada in Iraq, are basically evil doers, and Bibi has aligned Israel with them.

      Bibi providing solace to Daesh, al-Qeada, ISIS terrorists in an Israeli hospital

  20. Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson now is on record acknowledging that he believes that the Islamic State is a 'real' country.

    Mətušélaḥ Fri Nov 14, 12:48:00 AM EST

    Fuck, you're a dumbass, Bob.


  21. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg thought that the Soviet Union should have nuclear weapons to balance off the US nuclear monopoly. The Rosenberg's passed US secrets on how to build nuclear weapons to the Soviets at a time when the Soviets were threatening Eastern Europe.

    Curtis Lemay was a huge adherent of preemptive nuclear attack but that enthusiasm was not shared as ardently by others once the Soviets joined the nuclear club.

    The US executed the Rosenberg’s. The US also never went to war with The Soviet Union. MAD worked.

  22. The US has invaded Cuba, twice. That country does have a legitimate need to defend itself from future aggression.
    Whether a nuclear weapon would suffice, hard to say.

    The US was willing, had planned, a series of false flag attacks upon the citizens of the US, to be blamed upon Cuba, to justify a third invasion. Operation Northwoods was the code name.
    U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News

    1. In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

      Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

      The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

      America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

  23. deuce wishes for " ironically the long term existence and safety of a non-zionist Israel."

    a non-zionist israel.

    or clearer spoken?

    a non-Jewish Israel.

    1. Exactly, a democratic Palestine is what is needed in the Levant, not a Zionist and Apartheid fascist police state.

    2. One State, with full citizenship to all its residents, with right of return to all refugees and their descendents.

    3. so the arab world, 899/900th of the middle east cannot rest until the jewish state is destroyed to accomplish peace.

      Herr Jack, no thanks.

      Jews KNOW the hatred of the arabs...

      But you know that being one..

  24. I have been trying out a new type of argument technique taught me by Quirk the Logician.

    It's fun to use, though it doesn't seem to make any noticeable impact at all on some rock solid minds.

    Quirk calls this The Quartz Problem. Or The Quarts Problem. Something like that. May be related.

    Quirks Quartz Quarts Problem.

    Everyone loves my elk herd pictures. Wish I knew how to share here, but I don't.

    One young bull surrounded by ten or twelve longing lovely ladies....

    1. By the way I think Iran already has 'the bomb' in every meaningful sense. They have the components.

      They are working on delivery systems now, seems to me.

      They are not creating ICBM's to lauch 1,000 pound conventional warheads.

      Just one man's opinion.

    2. Then, Robert "Draft Dodger" Petrson they are not behaving as Bibi has told us they would.

      If they have the bomb, we have been promised the 'Mad Mullahs' would not hesitate to use it.

      But you say they have the capability, but are not using it.

      Bibi lies, or you are wrong, which could it be?

    3. The Iranians do have the lift capacity to hit Israel, or the oil fields of Arabia.

  25. but what is stopping any arab nation to be democratic and free now?

    they have 22 nations...

    not one free and democratic...

    set the example...

  26. Jack HawkinsSun Feb 15, 07:22:00 PM EST
    One State, with full citizenship to all its residents, with right of return to all refugees and their descendents.

    Do any of the 22 arab nations offer full citizenship to all its residents and the right of return to all refugees and their decedents?

    1. Gaza? Jordan? Egypt? The declared nation of Palestine?

      Oh no you say...

    2. Who cares what the other countries do, "O"rdure?

      They do not claim to 'represent nor be the fount, of "Western Ciilization", so they are merely, in the words of the American Sniper savages.

      Are the Jews savages, too?
      Are the Jews merely equivalent to the Semites?

      Is the Equivalency Standard now in effect?
      Do you now embrace the Equivalency Standard ?

      If so Jack will post that on his Google+ site, letting desert know he has won that debate.
      It will please him to no end, to know you now acknowledge he was correct, all along.

    3. By placing yourself on a pedestal, you are judged by the pedestal standard, not by the standard of the savages beneath your self selected seat.

      But if one were to acknowledge equality, then the standard would be equally applied.

    4. Jack your demands that Israel commit suicide have been rejected.

      Go fuck yourself

    5. Israel IS....

      Jack sorry that makes you made.

      If you don't like it?


    6. ''In 10 years Israel will cease to exist''
      8 years to go ...

    7. A Jewish diplomat known around the world chimes in.

    8. Another Jewish politician, from Israel has this to say about the current state of affairs in Israel ...

      “It is time to honestly admit that Israeli society is ill – and it is our duty to treat this disease,”
      “I’m not asking if they’ve forgotten how to be Jews, but if they’ve forgotten how to be decent human beings.
      Have they forgotten how to converse?”

      - Reuven Rivlin, President of Israel

      The disease will destroy the Zionist state, Rivlin knows it, Kissinger knows it.
      Bibi is a carrier of the infection.

    9. Jack, the reports of Israel's demise are greatly exaggerated.

      But you just keep holding on to stupidity.

      Jack, "the horse shit" Hawkins

    10. Jack always quotes things out of context and selected tidbits..

      Kissinger's statement is flat and unqualified. He is not saying that "Israel" is in danger, but could be saved if just gave it additional trillions of dollars and smashed enough of its enemies with American military.

      Kissinger says fund Israel and Israel should SMASH it's enemies...

      thanks jack for once again proving you lie and misdirect AND for showing us that as you say: Jack HawkinsSun Feb 15, 07:46:00 PM EST
      A Jewish diplomat known around the world chimes in.



      Sounds good.

    11. Let's get that reference for the Kissinger statement, "O"rdure, if it exists.
      Doubt that it does, but even if it did, it does not change the timeline.

    12. As for 'giving' Israel money, you guys should call Bernie Madoff and//or his clients.
      They have plenty of cash to contribute.

      Leave the US taxpayer alone.

    13. Give us the Kissinger quote you would prefer, "O"rdure.

  27. The Arabs fear a nuclear Iran, and not a nuclear Israel.

    1. And what is wrong with that, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson?

      Why should the Wahhabi sleep soundly?

    2. The Wahhabi already have the nuclear capacity, their nuclear tipped missiles are in Pakistan ...

      MAD would still prevail.

    3. Exactly, so the Iranians will not attack anyone.

      That's MAD.
      It works.