8 thoughts on “RAND Calls for U.S., Israel to Prepare for Nuclear Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The usual BS from military propgandists, RAND is more than a bit blind, and their warning is rather late. Most people realise already what they are saying. Perhaps we should question, why are they shooting their mouth of now, when it’s too late?

    I mean it can conclude that an attack on Iran by Israel would be more dangerous than not attacking it. That is true. But actually the real danger here is not Iran. It’s more than likely that Pakistan is behind Iran’s nuclear programs, and it’s probably shared what it has with Saudi Arabia. The nuclear scientist that was selling his expertise on the open market was the same brain behind Pakistans nuclear arsenal. With 100 nucelar warheads already why is Iran considered more dangerous than Pakistan?

    As for this:

    Rather, RAND seems to support a secular democratic regime, which is a plan I haven’t heard any serious observer of Iran advance. The chances of Iran turning to secular democracy are nil, just as the chances of Israel turning to a secular democracy are nil.

    This is why the US is so badly out of touch where the Middle East is concerned.

    Taking pot shots in the dark, with the hope that one of the shots will be on target.

    Even the so called experts in this case RAND don’t understand the culture or the politics of the region. They see it through their American eyes, which is why every war the US has been engaged in has been a failure.

    The thing is even if Iran’s nuclear ambitons were deterred somehow, it would only be a setback for say a number of years. Not forever. 30 years from now, it’s more than likely, that Iran, Iraq, and the Gulf States, along with Jordan, Lebanon will all have some form of nuclear capability.

    RAND didn’t address the most important issue either. How the US would relate to a nuclear Iran AFTER it became a nuclear power which will happen in the next few years. Would it let bybegones by bygones? India and Pakistan were only persona non grata countries for a short while.

    1. “why are they shooting their mouth of now, when it’s too late?”

      The simplest answer is probably the correct one: Nobody asked RAND to give its opinion until now.

  2. Good analysis Richard, and you may want to see Ali Gharib’s latest on the same subject over at Think Progress

    Gates: Israeli Strike On Iran ‘May End Up In A Much Larger Middle East Conflict’
    By Ali Gharib on May 16, 2012

    Gates has offered warnings about attacking Iran before, declaring that even a U.S. strike would be a “catastrophe.” So his statement that an Israeli strike would be “worse” is significant. And a Pentagon wargame reported by the New York Times this year found the U.S. got dragged into the conflict after an Israeli strike.

    A top U.S. security thinktank that advises the Pentagon released an article in its journal yesterday advising against a U.S. or Israeli strike against Iran. The article from the RAND Corporation by, among others, top former U.S. diplomat James Dobbins, noted that a strike “would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons” — in line with assessements from some top former Israeli officials.

  3. I think Persian Advocate was right long ago when he staked everything on this all being a belligerent escalation in the rhetoric of bluffing, all a facade to simply diminish Iran’s natural rise to power given recent events and to soften it up for potential invasion.

    Second, let’s just admit that the main proponent of the complaint, Israel, violates nearly every aspect of its own complaint and has no standing to make the complaint in the first place to an NPT compliant signatory. The law is not available to those who circumvent it.

    It’s amazing how far this debate has gotten with complete neglect to these obvious agenda points. Reminds one of the Israeli-Palestinian debate. The common denominator: a bunch of people who have learned to use the word as a weapon and continually control the borders and context of any debate (such that the solution is never reached or the victims remain confused and bewildered).

  4. RE: “My sense is that if Obama could rule as he wished this [the one advocated by the RAND report] is the sort of approach he would take. But he allows himself to be so hemmed in by political expedience that he’s driven into the latter approach.” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: Much like Bill Clinton before him!


    (excerpt)…HAIM KATZ: “If Clinton is elected, has he told you who he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “We’re talking now. We don’t have no commitments yet. We’re just negotiating. We’re more interested right now, in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.”
    HAIM KATZ: “If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “We don’t know yet, we’re negotiating.”
    HAIM KATZ: “Who are you hoping for?”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “I’ve got a list. But I really can’t go through it. I’m not allowed to talk about it.”
    HAIM KATZ: “But you figure, God willing, if Clinton’s elected . . .”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “We’ll have access.”
    HAIM KATZ: “You’ll have access and you’ll have a good input into who’s secretary of state.”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “I do believe so.”

    HAIM KATZ: “And the other position is. . .”
    DAVID STEINER AIPAC: “National security adviser.”
    HAIM KATZ: “Those are the two critical positions.”

    SOURCE – http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/16/aipacs-congress/

    1. The discussion cited by Dickerson is deeply disturbing — that AIPAC would be negotiating key administration positions in the US. Politics was always dirty but this is more than cynical and dirty: It disregards American interests entirely and this is very hard to take. A little tail wags this big dog. How much of this sort of sell out will Americans tolerate?

      I am sure that RAND’s perspective is limited and biased, as ever. Nonetheless, the report says many important things clearly and it provides a means for potentially shifting the discussion — one can hope.

      Thanks, Richard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *