An oft asked question not usually answered
September 3, 2012, 4:21 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
Patrick Pexton, the ombudsman of the Washington Post, reports on being asked:
“Readers periodically ask me some variation on this question: “Why does the press follow every jot and tittle of Iran’s nuclear program, but we never see any stories about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability?”
“It’s a fair question. Going back 10 years into Post archives, I could not find any in-depth reporting on Israeli nuclear capabilities, although national security writer Walter Pincus has touched on it many times in his articles and columns.”
In spite of all my many misgivings about Israel, the fact that they have (according to Wikipedia) somewhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads doesn’t unnerve me as much as the thought of Iran cobbling together one or two. I have heard arguments by reputable people that it would actually stabilize the Middle East for Iran to have nuclear capabilities, and maybe so. But I don’t lose any sleep over the thought of Israel having nuclear weapons, but I really don’t like the thought of Iran having the bomb.
David; ask yourself before your peaceful sleep .. if Iran attacked Israel with or without nuclear weapons, and Israel countered with 200+ nuclear delivered by some of the best pilots in the world, how many Iranians would survive? mad men are not ruling..
The question Pexton raised was why won’t the U.S. media factor that into its reporting on the Middle East.
Maybe one reason few worry about Israel’s use of nuclear weapons is that Israel doesn;tn routinely chest-thump about wiping (for example) Iran off the map, or bellowing about how Israel is a stain on the middle east and needs to be exterminated. Ah, that wonderful Muslim cultural substrate, so soulful, so endearing…
People interested in the Middle East might be interested in David Frum’s article at CNN in which he claims that the Arab Spring was sparked by the cost of bread, especially in Egypt. The cost of bread went up in the region because of the drought in the grain exporting countries including the U.S., China, Australia etc. Next year the drought will continue, and so, says Frum, will the serious unrest because of it.
Frum doesn’t offer much in the way of corroboration of this thesis, but I think it deserves attention. I wonder, for instance, whether and how it might affect Israel and the Palestinians.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/03/opinion/frum-food-price-crisis/index.html
The fact that Israel has nukes doesn’t mean they’ll use them in Iran or anywhere else, anymore than the fact that we have nukes means we will use them in any of our conflicts. The reason people aren’t as concerned about Israel having nukes as they are about Iran having them would probably be that they believe Israel to be more stable.
Crystal, how can you say we wouldn’t use our nukes? We have used them. We also specifically threatened to use them in Korea and would “not take them off the table” on numerous other occasions. We are the only people that, in addition to using them, have taken it upon ourselves to decide who may (India, most recently, as a matter of geopolitics) and may not (Iran currently) have them.
Yesterday, we read that our president, who claims exclusive power to kill-by-drone anyone whom he decides needs killing, killed one Khalid Batis of whom you and I had not previously heard and whose offenses have not been ruled on in any of our courts. He was allegedly “involved” in an attack on a French tanker. Four other people, existence currently unknown, were with him. We are soooo careful.
Yep – That unmanned drone business is not going away and will need to be dealt with properly. In addition to attack drones being deadly, other, spy-type drones are a threat to liberty and privacy.
As for the nukes, most people do not worry about Israel having them, mainly because Israel is probably the most reasonable nation in that area.
Tom – very well said.
President Obama can claim to his credit a number of noteworthy accomplishments during the earlier part of his presidency. The one that personally I think is the most undervalued is the treaty he signed with Russia to reduce the two countries’ nuclear weapons stockpiles. The president also signaled his intent earlier this year to reduce that US stockpile even farther. The president and Secretary Clinton also deserve credit for forestalling, if not permanently defusing, a nuke-fraught war between Iran and Israel – a situation about which Governor Romney is, in my opinion, dangerously bellicose.
The collapse of the Soviet Union seems to have caused the possibility of WMD obliteration to recede from American consciousness, but weapons continue to be built and, gradually, continue to proliferate. Nuclear weapons are never morally licit. I give President Obama tremendous credit for doing what he is able to minimize the risk that nukes will be used.
Ton,
Yes, we dropped the bombs in WWII in Japan. II’m pretty much a pacifist and think that was a terrible thing to do – I utterly condemn it. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t think the US would ever do that again.
Thanks, Jim P., for that reminder about the nukes. The are the greatest threat to humanity that exists.
” — reminder about the nukes. The are the greatest threat to humanity that exists.”
Nope, to paraphrase our friends at the NRA: nukes don’t kill people; people kill people. Nukes don’t do a darned thing without some finger pushing the trigger. Of course, having access to nukes rather than stones IS a bit of a temptation that a pile of stones doesn’t foster.
Here is a new question about Israel; GOP plank calls for recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capitol and Romney faults Dems for not having recognition of Jerusalem as the capital in their plank. Certain hierarchs will be stuck out on the wrong GOP limb if they ignore the long held Vatican policy of no recognition of Jerusalem as capitol . A hard choice for bishops who have to choose between the GOP policy and the Vatican policy.?? good.. hard choices build character.
Crystal – the United States would use them. Alone among the nations, we have a track record of it.
Recall the mood in the country immediately after 9/11. Now suppose that a nuclear device had been detonated in NY or Washington DC.
Certain hierarchs [sic] will be stuck out on the wrong GOP limb if they ignore the long held Vatican policy of no recognition of Jerusalem as capitol.
Yes Ed, but a policy is a long way from a dogma.
Jim,
I could be wrong but I do not think the US would nuke anyone unless we were in a totally no win scenarion with multiple nukes flying at us and no hope of anything else but revenge. Conventional war retaliation, yes, but a terrorist with a dirty bomb in a city here wouldn’t be enough to make us nuke another country. Or so I’d like to think.
But on the other hand, I could be wrong – this is pretty scary …. http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm