[lit-ideas] Re: Bombing Osirik in 1981
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:14:41 -0700
I thought my little quiz was more transparent than it apparently was. I am
neither concerned about the New York Times nor Israel's battle with
Hezbollah. When I read the lines describing how close Saddam came to having
"four or five Hiroshima-sized bombs" in light of the trial he is undergoing,
I thought surely no one today would say it was a bad thing for Israel to
have bombed Osirik. Some on the Left for awhile seemed to be arguing that
we should leave Saddam alone, but I haven't heard that argument in some
time. I suspect that most people are glad he is no longer in power and glad
he never managed to get his 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
In view of that, that most people are probably glad Saddam never got his
bombs, I turned my attention to Iran. Is Iran any less dangerous than
Saddam's Iraq? If anything it is more dangerous. It developed and armed
Hezbollah and from what we have seen, unless Israel is attempting some sort
of military trick, Hezbollah is holding its own against Israel; which
suggests that Iran's military competence may have grown from the days of the
Iran/Iraq war. Will we be content for Iran to get 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized
bombs? Even if Iran doesn't share its bombs with Hezbollah, would we be
content for Ahmadinejad to have 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized bombs?
Saddam's Iraq was "militant" in the sense that he intended to use his
weapons to expand Iraq's power. He wanted a Nassar-type Pan-Arabia, all the
Arabian states united with Iraq (Saddam) in charge. Saddam intended to use
his bombs to coerce cooperation and to prevent interference from the U.S.
Ahmadinejad's Iran is "militant" in the sense that it has remained true to
Khomeini's desire that the Iranian "Revolution" be exported. Iran has some
use in mind for its weapons, some form of blackmail or coercion.
Ahmadinejad believes the Protocols of Zion to be historically accurate and
the Holocaust to be a myth but I seriously doubt that the destruction of
Israel is high on his list. Whether Israel shares my equanimity on that
matter is doubtful. But whatever Iran intends to do with its 4 or 5
Hiroshima-sized bombs, I suspect we won't like it.
So what should we do? Should we wait and see what Iran will do with its
bombs, wait and see how Iran uses them to further its political (and
"Revolutionary") ambitions? Or should we do as Israel did in 1981? Lots of
people in the West were unhappy with Israel in 1981 for bombing Osirik, but
few in the West (I suspect) would like to go back in time in an H. G. Wells
Time Machine and stop that bombing. We are faced with a similar decision
today and it may be that Israel hasn't the wherewithal to bomb Iran's
nuclear facilities in the manner that they bombed Iraq's. It may be that
the U.S. is the only nation with that wherewithal.
I suspect that we don't have as much courage and resolution as Israel had in
1981. I suspect that Israel doesn't either. I suspect that we are going to
pursue a "diplomatic solution" to the bitter end. The Bush administration
did what it thought was right in Afghanistan and Iraq but because of the
flack it received both at home and abroad it has (I suspect) resolved to
stick to diplomacy for the rest of the Bush term. I suspect that we are not
going to take the Osirik lesson to heart but are instead going to live
through the alternative. We are going to find out what a Militant Islamic
nation will do with 4 or 5 Hiroshima-sized bombs.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 6:40 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Bombing Osirik in 1981
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On page 198 of The Losing Battle with Islam,
> Selbourne writes, "when Israel
> carried out a pre-emptive attack on Iraq's nuclear
> rector at Osirak in June
> 1981, on the eve of the arrival there of a shipment
> of enriched uranium
> sufficient to build four or five Hiroshima-sized
> bombs,
*I'd like to hear some more detail about this, such as
where was the shipment coming from, and did the US
know about it ?
What say ye
> Lit-idears? Do you agree with
> the NYTimes? Was it wrong of Israel to bomb Osirik
> in 1981?
*Looking back, Israel might have been right to bomb
Osirak in 1981, because:
1. It acted that time really with the view of
protecting its security, instead of attaining
political goals or getting the US approval. (Let's
remember that Saddam Hussein was a US ally against
Iran at the time.)
2. It was a considered action, rather than one hastily
taken in response to an immediate provocation.
3. It has a clearly defined, limited, and attainable
objectives.
4. It executed the action in a competent manner,
avoiding mass killing of civilians or large-scale
destruction of civilian targets.
5. It avoided escalating the conflict.
I'll leave it to you to compare this to what Israel is
doing now.
O.K.
Other related posts:
