Is a belief enough to make a consideration of armed preventive war not mad?

To what end, no one can be certain, but it is quite possible that it will do so for leverage against Israel and the US.  But no one wins in a nuclear war

Have you considered deterrence? The exact same reason most nuclear states insist on their arsenal?

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

I have indeed argued in other threads that a nuclear-armed Iran would not necessarily be a bad thing; I know that this is not a widely shared opinion, I understand some of the arguments against it (more countries joining the "fun"), and I can readily believe that Israelis are not too keen to test that hypothesis.

So I can understand the case for trying to keep Iran non-nuclear. What I failed to see in your article is the recognition that the biggest problem today in the region is not Iran, it's the occupation of Iraq, and the fact that the crowd that cooked up that grand triumph of wishful thinking over reality is still in power, mostly unchecked. It's not Iran that has brought about the deaths of several hundred thousand people in the Middle East, and the displacement of several million more. It's not Iran that has legitimized torture, pre-emptive attacks and open contempt for the UN. Calling those in the Bush administration that advocate for an attack on Iran "not mad", as you did, given the context, is equivalent to giving them a blank check, whether you like it or not.

And that's irresponsible.

The fact that, again, you state a belated preference, in paragraph 11, for no invasion, is not quite enough. Your editorial does not "say plainly" that you are against a military attack. It says so discreetly, mildly, barely, after several paragraphs of enthusiastic support for the idea of an attack. You are parsing your words more than I am to say that this editorial is against a military attack.

As to Iran, this is a topic we follow quite closely, as the following links (all from last year) show:

The Iranian scenario that keeps me up at night by STA
Countdown to Iran War: New Attack Plans and Euro Peace Play by goinsouth
Who Will Stop World War III? by goinsouth
What it takes to attack Iran by STA
For Israel, it's starting to feel like it's 1938 again by wchurchill
Firing the Foreign Secretary: On to Iran? by smintheus
Notes on the Iranian Government by Colman
No wiping off maps by Colman
Some good news about Iran by Jerome a Paris
Iran: still no military solution by IdiotSavant
Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia by Bernhard
The US as nuclear rogue State by Sirocco
Hersh: the Iran plans by whataboutbob
Iran ready for high level talks; US resist by Jerome a Paris
Are you sure you want to legalize preemptive strikes? by Colman
Gnomemoot 0: how bad could Iran get? by Colman
2003: neocons killed Iranian peace offer (on nuclear and terrorism) by Jerome a Paris (dKos)
Stalemate in the UN Security Council. A New "Cold War" with Iran? by verchenceto
Russia: US campaign against Iran looks like the one against Iraq by Jerome a Paris (dKos)
Gnomemoot 0: A poorly thought out proposal by Colman
John Bolton is Lying about Iran's Nukes by Steven D
Huh, Iran has uranium mines by Colman
'Ira() has nukes, will use them - we must strike first' by Jerome a Paris (dKos)
I have a cunning plan my Lord by Colman
Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours by Colman
Gnomemoot: should we get on the record? by wchurchill
EU 3 meeting with Iran today by whataboutbob
The Monolith Crumbles: Reality and Revisionism in Iran by ghandi
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - problem summary and more questions by Colman
Let me kill off once and for all the Iranian oil bourse story by Jerome a Paris
Let Iran have the bomb
The US as nuclear rogue State (II)
The US as nuclear rogue State (I)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

The Economist's article argues strongly AGAINST any military attack on Iran

Good thing you say so, because you would hardly believe it given the general tone of your article, with quotes from the most extremist people given prominent position and, almost hidden at the end, a rather timid advocacy that The Economist is actually against a military attack on Iran.

Sir, if you're against such a foolish course of action, why not saying so in no uncertain terms? You know, using short and direct sentences and capitalized words for emphasis. Or are you reserving this scoop for the much more widely read Eurotrib?

What are you afraid of? Being called names inside the Beltway? (or even worse, French :-)

Also: "(a) it [Iran] has threatened Israel's destruction". As you, people, acknowledge in the article, Ahmadinejad may never have uttered those precise words, as Juan Cole also explained on his blog. So, which way will it be?

For people who are against military escalation with Iran, you sure are giving a lot of airtime to those people who are of the opposite view...

That's the general problem many of us have with The Economist: criticizing these dumb and arrogant Yanks in a thinly veiled but real subtle fashion, yet not getting around to openly and plainly opposing the policies of the ruling cabal in DC.

Thanks for stopping by and debating with us, by the way; much appreciated.

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

"There is indeed a rational case for pre-emption but we don't buy it."

Hi. I think that's one of the major flaws in your leader. You seem to take it as a given that the U.S. has a right to intervene in Iran if it deems doing so to be in it's interests, in effect that the U.S. has a right to rule the world.

It doesn't. Even if there were a "rational case" that attacking Iran would bring positive results for the U.S. and Israel, we would still have no right whatsoever to attack them. I think that's a critical point, and its missing from your editorial.

Further, you start the leader thus:

"Iran's leaders think a nuclear weapon could rejuvenate their tired revolution."

Do they? Really? I was under the impression that the Iranian leadership had repreatedly denied any desire for a nuclear weapon, and that the IAEA has been unable to discover any evidence to the contrary.

You write:

"While the world has been distracted by Iraq, Afghanistan and much else, Iran has been moving relentlessly closer to the point where it could build an atomic bomb."

Has it? Again - as far as I'm aware (and please provide the evidence if I'm wrong on this), we have no proof that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Isn't it therefore the height of irresponsibility to assume that it is, given the current political climate?

"Figuring out how to put the fuel into a usable weapon will also take time--perhaps a year or more. But for would-be bomb-builders, making the fuel is by far the hardest part."

Again, you're assuming that Iran is trying for a bomb. That is not a legitimate assumption.

"It has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and says its nuclear aims are peaceful. But having spent decades deceiving nuclear inspectors, it is disbelieved even by its friends."

Yes, Iran hasn't been exactly honest about its nuclear programme in the past (to put it mildly). However, since it all finally came out Iran has been extremely cooperative, voluntarily suspending enrichment and submitting to extensive IAEA checks and investigations, and even, for a time, acting on the basis of optional additional protocols that gave the IAEA even more access. The result has been that, while there remain some inconsistencies or unanswered questions, the IAEA has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme whatsoever.

"The centrifuges spin defiantly on."

The UNSC resolutions had no basis in law. Iran is entitled by the NPT to enrich uranium. If anything, you should say that the UN Security Council is acting "defiantly".

"So what next? This story could have at least three unhappy endings."

Well, there is another option, but of course it is considered too far beyond the pale to even bother mentioning. Iran has proposed this option itself numerous times: the Middle East could be made a nuclear weapons free zone. Or, even further beyond the pale, how about all the nuclear weapons states comply with the law, stop pretending that they have some God-given right to nukes that Iran and everyone else don't and start seriously working towards global disarmament? Or are we only allowed to think about how to maintain the unjust situation where some countries are permitted nuclear weapons whilst other are not?

"After the false intelligence that led America into Ira"

Well, I'd dispute your wording here. It's not just that the intelligence was "false", but rather that it was deliberately fixed around the policy. It was made to be false; it didn't just happen to be that way.

"But they are--and they are not mad."

Really? I would think that "mad" is quite an appropriate description of any state seriously thinking about perpetrating another criminal act of mass murder, even as the victims of its last such act are continuing to die in horrific numbers ever single day, don't you?

"This time, after all, there is no question of false intelligence: the world's fears are based on capabilities that Iran itself boasts about openly."

Yes, but surely you accept that it is totally illegitimate (criminal, in fact) to attack someone just because they have the capability to produce nuclear weapons? What matters is whether they actually are producing nuclear weapons.

And even then, unless there was solid evidence showing that Iran was planning to use those nuclear wepaons, an attack would not be legitimate (just as it would not have been acceptable to, for example, bomb Israel if we had found out what they were up to in Dimona in time).

"Yet such an attack would nonetheless be a huge gamble."

No, it would be a huge crime. Why do you never point this out? Is it unimportant? Doesn't it matter? Is the only relevant question whether or not its technically feasible, or strategically wise?

"The succinct answer of Senator John McCain is that although attacking Iran would be bad, an Iran with nuclear weapons would be worse."

Who cares what John McCain thinks? He supported the criminal aggression against Iraq, so is it really that surprising that he is in favour of a criminal aggression against Iran? John McCain has zero credibility, so why turn to him?

"He is not alone: most of America's presidential candidates would consider military force.
"

Yes, and they are only able to keep up that criminal stance because papers and journals like yours do not call them on it. Call them on it, please.

"But in fact he may never have uttered those precise words"

Well done for pointing that out, although you seem to contradict this in your comment above. What you fail to mention in this leader is that whatever Ahmadinejad said, he is the President, elected on the basis of his promises of domestic reforms, and thus has no power over foreign policy whatsoever. That power lies with Khamenei, who has explicitly said that 'Iran poses no threat to any state' (that's a paraphrase, but it's practically word for word - the precise quote is on Wikipedia, if you want it).

"This newspaper continues to believe that even for Israel containment of a nuclear Iran would be less awful than a risky pre-emptive attack"

A "pre-emptive attack" is not what's being discussed here. "Pre-emptive attacks" have a strict legal definition - an attack is preemptive if it is in response to an immediate and overwhelming threat, leaving no choice of means and no time for deliberation. In other words, for an attack to qualify as 'preemptive' it must be in response to strong evidence of an imminent attack. Anything else is "preventive" or "aggressive" - international law makes no distinction between the two.

Also, I note how your article is totally from the perspective of Israel and the U.S. THere is no attempt to step inside Iran's shoes and look at it from the Iranian perspective. Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear powers (Israel and the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq) and is sitting atop energy resources that the U.S. has made perfectly clear it desires. It was named as part of the "axis of evil" by a country with an explicit policy, and a long history, of 'preventive force' (which, again, is legally indistinguishable from aggression). Iraq, its neighbour on the "axis", has already been invaded and destroyed - the lesson to Iran is clear: get nukes, quick! As Israeli military historian Martin van Crevald has said, "I don't know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but it they aren't, they're crazy!"

Instead, for The Economist, all that matters is the security of Israel and the U.S. Iran's security needs are, evidently, irrelevant.

"Even if Iran never used its bomb, mere possession of it might encourage it to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy than the one it is already pursuing in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories."

Yes - 'gunboat diplomacy'. We can't have that, can we? Only the United States is permitted to use military might to back up its foreign policy.

"And once Iran went nuclear other countries in the region--such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps Turkey--would probably feel compelled to follow suit, thereby entangling the Middle East in a cat's cradle of nuclear tripwires."

Unless you think that the Arab states and Iran will be content to sit in the shade of a nuclear Israel forever, then this is going to happen sooner or later anyway. A world in which some have nuclear weapons and some don't is unsustainable (not to mention unjust), particularly if those that do adopt as aggressive a foreign policy as the U.S. and Israel have. The solution is not to invade Iran, but to work seriously towards global disarmament.

"Iran is obstinate, paranoid and ambitious."

Paranoid? Hardly. Iran would have to be totally crazy if it didn't fear for its security. Ambitious? Yes, although its hardly alone in that characteristic. Obstinate? Well, given that its only after its legitimate rights, why not be obstinate?

Surely it is those in Israel and the U.S., the global and regional military superpowers, both with sizeable nuclear arsenals of their own,  who claim that Iran poses a threat to them who are paranoid? Surely it is the U.S. that is being "obstinate" and "ambitious"?

See - you say this is an editorial against an attack, but in fact it works tirelessly to legitimise one.

"Sanctions that cut off equipment for its decrepit oilfields or struck hard at the financial interests of the regime and its protectors in the Revolutionary Guards would have an immediate impact on its own assessment of the cost of its nuclear programme."

OK - if you can present to me a morally and legally consistent argument that would permit sanctions on Iran but not on the U.S., please do so. I certainly can't think of one.

The Heathlander

1. The Economist has ZERO credibility here.  Not only did you guys support taking Hussein out, you have consistently supported economic policies over the past 30 years that have destroyed the lives of millions of people.  If you could support "structural adjustments" and you did, why would we believe you wouldn't support nuking Iran?

2. Burying a little "balance" far into an article is just another CYA lie.  If you were really against an attack on Iran, your headline would have read, "Global Economic Calamity Certain from Attack on Iran."

3. You have a lot of chutzpah to suggest Jerome isn't very bright because he didn't summarize your whole thesis (you even point out that he got the page count wrong.)  Listen you clown, I have read both of you and in my humble opinion, you are not intellectually qualified to wash Jerome's shorts.  More to the point, while Jerome is investing in real projects that solve real problems and provide some tiny hope for a possible future, your worthless rag thinks that there is nothing wrong with "investing" in derivatives.  I am pretty certain that the whole staff of the Economist--together--wouldn't recognize the difference between investing and computerized speculation.  You guys wouldn't know a real investment if it kicked you in the backside.
   

You began an article with the ravings of a madman who is loudly calling a kettle black. As a member of a religion who many believe is a cult, I truly believe that people should be allowed to enjoy whatever beliefs they want, regardless of how absurd they are. But let's get down to it...how is the Jewish faith, the official dogma of the Israeli state, any less a messianic apocalyptic cult, ruled for decades by messianic apocalyptic tyrants, than Iran may be? You choose to assert that the Iran has threatened Israel's destruction, but the facts of the quote you would use to prove that are against you... Ahmadinejad clearly stated, regardless of how the press decided to announce it, that at some point Isreal would be wiped off the map in the same way that the USSR has been wiped off the map. [[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.]

You cannot logically claim to have a different conclusion when your article is unreadable by anyone who knows the history of the region. It is impossible to get past the first paragraphs. Para 3 for example-Despite your bold assertion, what Iran is doing now is not illegal. Period. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows a country to build peaceful nukes. End of story. That a group of countries who have terrorized the world for several decades with the MAD theory might think that Iran is doing something different...helloooo? Why do they have any credence? Why does Israel, with more never inspected actual nuclear warheads than nearly anyone, get off the hook? Because her leaders are so logical? No, in fact, they are madmen, and that some of their leaders express it so clearly, let's face it, they are genocidal madmen.

Here...lead your article with one of these quotes next time.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
-- David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."
-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Knesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

You should be embarrassed that you are in the position of having to defend an indefensible article. All those dripping lines, too clever by half, from the first dig at the Iranian Revolution, to the non-sense implying an Iranian bomb in a year...indefensible.

In the not too distant future, your country will have the same problems that Iran is facing. Less revenue from oil, not enough oil to keep the population happy, and the inability to trust any other resource than nuclear. Will England take the same course as the US, roving like a shark, constantly investing more in military to secure areas of importance? Oh, I forgot, England has already gone through that stage. Careful, the US has bankrupted England once before. Is Iran going to be roaming half-way around the globe the way that the messianic-ally driven US is? I don't think so. Keep your eye upon who the real threat is, lest you be seen for what you are...a shill for your master.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

I recognise your argument that a future Israeli PM thinking this way about his adversaries makes the situation more difficult. However,

1. you should have made this explicit in the article, I don't think we are the only ones who missed it;

2. this argument is weakened if one considers whether Netanyahu's words are his actual thoughts -- or is he only campaigning;

3. what's more, Netanyahu makes the situation more volatile before Iran would get nukes, while he still can advocate a preventive bombing campaign.