The Iran War

DSGamer wrote:

I agree. Not only ample means but the weight of the international community, diplomacy and the economic leverage to put pressure on the regime. If the US is indeed straight-up blowing up cars to kill people that's textbook terrorism. At that point the only difference between that and a suicide bomber at an Israeli cafe is intent and politics.

Unless we're blowing up clown cars, I disagree. I don't get how people can't see how weak the comparison is between killing a nuclear scientist to stop a nuclear weapons program, and killing a random group of Israeli people in a cafe to achieve a Palestinian homeland.

Maybe because of those "ample means" these assassinations are wrong, maybe they're evil; but what is this obsession with applying the worst words we can find to everything we disagree with?

Perhaps it comes from having already diluted the word "terrorism" to apply to everything under the sun? When peaceful protests are being called terrorism, how is assassination not?

It would probably be better to restrict "terrorism" to mean a smaller set of things, but that cat's already out of the bag.

(And I, personally, don't consider "terrorism" to be one of the worst words we can find. I don't consider either terrorism or assassination to be strictly worse than straight up warfare--it all depends on the context.)

Hypatian wrote:

Perhaps it comes from having already diluted the word "terrorism" to apply to everything under the sun? When peaceful protests are being called terrorism, how is assassination not?

It would probably be better to restrict "terrorism" to mean a smaller set of things, but that cat's already out of the bag.

(And I, personally, don't consider "terrorism" to be one of the worst words we can find. I don't consider either terrorism or assassination to be strictly worse than straight up warfare--it all depends on the context.)

A war on words is always a war I think I can win.

An article headline on a local paper (ynet) claims that some Intelligence agencies are eliminating Iranian scientist to prevent recovery after someone bombs Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure why you worry about Israel you should worry about your precious oil prices ;).

I seriously doubt Israel would attack Iran directly. Iran already attacked Israel a few times . Hamas is heavily supported by Iran. Hizbollah members are practically Iranian soldiers. The friendship between Iran and Syria isn't a big surprise because Assad is Alawi which is derived from Shia and Iran is a Shiaite theocracy .

I'm not sure who or when Iran would be attack but what I'm sure about is that we'll get bombarded. The government is promoting missile defense programs but the coverage big. If Iran fires and ICBM at Israel there is a fair chance Israel will retaliate with unconventional weapons to end the threat quickly (hurt the enemy in a way they wouldn't want to continue to fight) . This is generally the big risk. It's a Mexican standoff - none want to go first but when bullets start flying a lot of people will get hurt. Any war may cause one of the sides to light up oil wells or constrict the world oil supply in other ways so there would be a big price to pay at the gas station

CheezePavilion wrote:

A war on words is always a war I think I can win.

Language change is like the movement of a glacier. Whether you're trying to change the word to mean something you want it to mean for political purpose, or trying to prevent a change (from any source), it's like trying to fight Antarctica.

Protip: If you define your terms at the start of a discussion, you can avoid this problem. I blame Paleo for referring to the "textbook definition of terrorism" without providing one. ;>

Niseg wrote:

[em]stuff[/em]

Thank you, Niseg, for demonstrating the attitudes that make it very easy for me to believe that this was Israel.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My understanding is that a nuclear weapons program isn't just some high school chemistry teacher's meth lab. You can't just go find another scientist. There are a limited number of these kinds of scientists.

Then how many are there? How many are left in Iran? How many are there in the world that Iran could contract or hire to come and work on their program? Do you know? Unless they are all gone, then the affect of intimidation is real.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Besides, with that broad of a definition, all war would be terrorism: you can always go find another solider, too. I'm not saying this isn't a really difficult debate, where terrorism ends and...let's just say non-terroristic combat begins, but calling the killing of nuclear scientists in order to prevent a nuclear weapons program from succeeding "terrorism" pretty much renders that word meaningless.

While I'm against the slow creep of the definition of terrorism as much as the next guy, it's just ridiculous to equate the fighting of war by soldiers against soldiers with the systematic bombings of scientists.

If blowing up scientists making nuclear weapons is not terrorism then can we agree that blowing up scientists working on power plants is terrorism?

I'd also like to point out that the only way that the campaign of blowing up scientists to stop them from making nuclear stuff is either to scare all remaining scientists away from working with them, or murder every single nuclear scientist on the planet. It's easier to design a nuclear bomb than a nuclear reactor.

Terrorism is the something that only happens to countries that are in the right. When it happens to countries that are "bad" like Iran then it's not terrorism.

DSGamer wrote:

Terrorism is the something that only happens to countries that are in the right. When it happens to countries that are "bad" like Iran then it's not terrorism.

I believe the term used for those countries is Shock and Awe.

CheezePavilion wrote:

My understanding is that a nuclear weapons program isn't just some high school chemistry teacher's meth lab. You can't just go find another scientist. There are a limited number of these kinds of scientists.

Nuclear weapons are a 60-year-old technology. The science of behind them has long been figured out, including only really hard part of how to create the fissionable material.

What Iran and any other country who wants to become part of the Nuclear Club faces today is an engineering problem, not a scientific one.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Then how many are there? How many are left in Iran? How many are there in the world that Iran could contract or hire to come and work on their program? Do you know? Unless they are all gone, then the affect of intimidation is real.

I would hazard a guess that the scientists in question would fear what the Iranian internal security forces would do to them and their families if they stopped working much more than the tenuous threat of getting assassinated by the Mossad.

Slate had an article where they made a back of the envelope calculation that there likely thousands of people involved in Iran's nuclear program (the Manhattan Project employed 120,000 people), but that there might be about 50 or so people who were really key to the program. At this point, though, no one can assassinate their way to shutting down the program. As long as there's one technician left who can run the centrifuges the program would be operational.

As far as outside help Iran could easily get more assistance with its nuclear weapons program from Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network, North Korea, and, if push came to shove, likely even China considering how much oil the Chinese government buys directly from Iran and the Middle East.

OG_slinger wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

My understanding is that a nuclear weapons program isn't just some high school chemistry teacher's meth lab. You can't just go find another scientist. There are a limited number of these kinds of scientists.

Nuclear weapons are a 60-year-old technology. The science of behind them has long been figured out, including only really hard part of how to create the fissionable material.

What Iran and any other country who wants to become part of the Nuclear Club faces today is an engineering problem, not a scientific one.

So are we killing scientists or engineers or people who are both?

If you're right that "As long as there's one technician left who can run the centrifuges the program would be operational" then yeah, this would be ineffective. Is that terrorism though? Or is that just us being dumb again?

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Then how many are there? How many are left in Iran? How many are there in the world that Iran could contract or hire to come and work on their program? Do you know? Unless they are all gone, then the affect of intimidation is real.

I would hazard a guess that the scientists in question would fear what the Iranian internal security forces would do to them and their families if they stopped working much more than the tenuous threat of getting assassinated by the Mossad.

That's very true.

CheezePavilion wrote:

So are we killing scientists or engineers or people who are both?

If you're right that "As long as there's one technician left who can run the centrifuges the program would be operational" then yeah, this would be ineffective. Is that terrorism though? Or is that just us being dumb again?

It seems like it's senior officials/adminstrators of the enrichment program who are being targeted as well as academics (who are often both). The guy who was assassinated this week was a chemist (though he was named by the media as a "nuclear scientist"), a college professor, and he ran a department at an enrichment plant.

Killing the scientists *is* completely ineffective because the nuclear cat is already out of bag. Iran already has an active refinement program up and running. You're not going to be able to bump off the only guy who knows how everything works because the program is much bigger than that. The best possible outcome for that approach is it takes Iran a little bit longer to get a nuclear weapon and really piss off Iran, who now has a nuclear weapon (and a working launch platform).

The discussion about whether or not the assassinations are terrorism or not is kinda moot. Whatever you call it, if the assassinations ever get traced back to the country that ordered them then Iran would have a casus belli and the rest of the world would see the assassinations as what they are: blatant acts of war committed by Israel or the US against Iran.

Assassinations make sense as a "commit acts of war against Iran until they break and commit an act of war against us and we can invade as the entire populace completely ignores the fact that we/Israel started it" strategy.

I think the only context in which these actions make any sense at all from a foreign policy standpoint is if we are committed to a full blown hot war with Iran AND we are convinced that these acts of terrorism against them will provoke them into a reaction that will provide us the pretext to justify such an action. Otherwise, these actions seem, at least to me, tremendously misguided.

If we aren't committed to war, these actions are likely to do one of two things: 1) trigger retaliation against Israel or 2) convince the Iranian public of the necessity of an nuclear weapon. Since it is unlikely that the US and/or Israel would risk this sort of aggressive behavior if Iran had a functional and deliverable nuclear weapon, the fact that these acts are currently committed speaks tremendously loudly to nukes as an overriding national prerogative.

If we aren't convinced that these acts will result in a violent Iranian reaction, it is hard to see how they are likely to be productive as they are overwhelmingly likely to convince ordinary Iranians of the necessity of a means to ensure sovereignty. Even those that disagree with the current regime are likely to see this aggressive action as humiliating, threatening, and quite possibly existential. If there were any Iranian nuclear scientists that conscientiously objected to the idea of working with the regime, these actions have likely made those objections evaporate.

Considering how little stomach the US currently has for such a hot war, however, I doubt that this is the path to which we are committed. This then begs the question "what the hell are we thinking?".

The only real answer I can come up with is that these actions are pandering to a domestic audience and it is predicated on the calculated risk that Iran will just suck it up (presumably aware of the knowledge that we will incinerate them should they do otherwise). We know (as they do) that they will eventually get their nukes and that there is little if anything we can do about it. We know that, in the interim, they will do nothing while we murder their citizens in the absence of a formal declaration of conflict. But the current administration needs to demonstrate the willingness to "do something" given the threat of an Islamic bomb.

In short, it's a lot of deficit spending of diplomatic blowback for a few Jewish votes.

i38warhawk wrote:

No white war time U.S. President has been voted out of office. Just saying...

Fixed that for you.

If Afghanistan is still limping along by Nov. 2012, is he technically a wartime president?

These attacks make a little more sense to me if the worry is that Iran will develop a Japan-style nuclear option rather than a full-blown nuclear deterrent. There is no evidence that Iran is doing anything wrong, and they're being almost ostentatiously transparent (I guess they have windows on the west side of their house), but they're clearly committed to growing their (peaceful and plausibly necessary) nuclear resources. If, in the course of that program, they ever get to the point where they could go from zero-to-bomb in 6-12 months, they get many of the benefits of a real bomb with very few of the drawbacks.

An Iranian nuclear option considerably limits Israel's freedom to maneuver, so they feel it must be stopped. However, in the absence of evidence of a military nuclear program, an action attributable to a nation-state is too risky. So the facilitate an operation where standard terrorist/guerrilla techniques are used to accomplish their strategic objective.

America's saber-rattling might come from the same cause. OTOH, it might be a political calculation, or a half-measure intended to show Israel whose side we're on without committing to a hot war. That's a dangerous game, though. US Presidents rarely cover themselves in glory with their Middle East policy, but Obama has been particularly disappointing to me; I hope he knows when and how to fold gracefully before he gets pot-committed.

CheezePavilion wrote:

The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but when it comes to targeted assassinations on nuclear scientists in order to keep those scientists from developing a nuclear weapon, there are no compelling arguments I can think of. I agree there are a lot of cases where you can make a compelling case, but we're talking about this case.

A counterpoint from the US legal code.

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by [...]assassination,

That makes assassination of nuclear scientists terrorism.

Malor wrote:
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by [...]assassination,

That makes assassination of nuclear scientists terrorism.

Technically it makes it "international terrorism." I'm sure that's a hair that's been split in meetings.

Malor wrote:
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by [...]assassination,

That makes assassination of nuclear scientists terrorism.

I concur and I'm not sure how anyone could argue to the contrary.

93_confirmed wrote:
Malor wrote:
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by [...]assassination,

That makes assassination of nuclear scientists terrorism.

I concur and I'm not sure how anyone could argue to the contrary.

You're not? I think it's pretty simple:

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but when it comes to targeted assassinations on nuclear scientists in order to keep those scientists from developing a nuclear weapon, there are no compelling arguments I can think of. I agree there are a lot of cases where you can make a compelling case, but we're talking about this case.

A counterpoint from the US legal code.

Yeah, I don't go to the US legal code for my definitions when figuring out what is right and wrong. The LAST thing I'm going to argue is that our laws haven't gone straight to Cleveland in a whole lot of cases.

Sorry boys, but just because I'm willing to defend *some* things about the American government doesn't mean I'm willing to defend *all* things or that I don't have just as much an issue when it comes to some things as you all do. There's no question there's a ridiculous amount of hypocrisy in the way America behaves.

However, hypocrisy =/= terrorism.

It says it right in our own legal code, Cheeze. It's right there. It's terrorism.

Of course, since we don't actually follow our own laws, it's not like there will be any internal consequences. Laws are only for the little people.

The actions of whoever assassinated this scientist appear to be intended to influence the policy of the Iranian government by intimidation or coercion.

According to US legal code, that is terrorism.

edit:

93_confirmed wrote:

The actions of whoever assassinated this scientist appear to be intended to influence the policy of the Iranian government by intimidation or coercion.

According to US legal code, that is terrorism.

Malor wrote:

It says it right in our own legal code, Cheeze. It's right there. It's terrorism.

When did you guys become such fans of the American legal code ; D

Of course, since we don't actually follow our own laws, it's not like there will be any internal consequences. Laws are only for the little people.

If you're making an argument that this is a case of us not following the laws we expect others to follow, I agree.

CheezePavilion wrote:
93_confirmed wrote:
Malor wrote:
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by [...]assassination,

That makes assassination of nuclear scientists terrorism.

I concur and I'm not sure how anyone could argue to the contrary.

You're not? I think it's pretty simple:

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

The thing is, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but when it comes to targeted assassinations on nuclear scientists in order to keep those scientists from developing a nuclear weapon, there are no compelling arguments I can think of. I agree there are a lot of cases where you can make a compelling case, but we're talking about this case.

A counterpoint from the US legal code.

Yeah, I don't go to the US legal code for my definitions when figuring out what is right and wrong. The LAST thing I'm going to argue is that our laws haven't gone straight to Cleveland in a whole lot of cases.

Sorry boys, but just because I'm willing to defend *some* things about the American government doesn't mean I'm willing to defend *all* things or that I don't have just as much an issue when it comes to some things as you all do. There's no question there's a ridiculous amount of hypocrisy in the way America behaves.

However, hypocrisy =/= terrorism.

If you'd provide your definition of terrorism, we probably could have skipped a whole bunch of posts already.

I tend to think of terrorism as acts of assymetric warfare intending to cripple enemy morale by targeting the civilian population. Now, scientists working in a field that has military applications are kind of a gray zone, but given that neither israel nor the United States are at war with Iran at the moment, I'd put Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan squarely in the civilian bracket, and given that demoralizing an opponent and striking at important aren't mutually exclusive, I don't have a problem with labeling this an act of terrorism.

However, whether this technically meets the definition of terrorism or not, we can probably all agree that assassinating scientists is all kinds of morally repugnant behaviour, yes?

And if you accept that this was morally repugnant act, I don't see why you're tying yourself into knots trying to make this not terrorism. You decry the debasement of the word, but at the same time, you accept that it's "the worst word". You can't do both. "Terrorism" is an utterly debased label used to tar political opponents for as the very worst thing since Hitler for political gain.

Or do you really see assassination as being that much better? Particularly when not at a state of war, assassination and terrorism are both really horrendous tools to advance an agenda. Personally, I don't care to sift through the rationale to declare "blowing up that cafe filled with scientists crippled the enemy's nuclear capabilities" as being significantly morally superior to "blowing up that cafe filled with civilians sapped the enemy's will to fight".

Anyway, what this particular case does, aside from being generally terrible, is highlight how f*cking debased terrorism has become as a term. According to the US legal code, either the United States or one of its closest allies is engaging in terrorism in Iran. And yet, the United States, engaged as it is in its unending Holy War On Terror, does nothing to condemn it or much of anything besides mumble "don't look at us" while looking pointedly away from Israel. And no major US news agency has the balls to call a spade a spade.

This is why so many people are so keen on invoking that very worst of words. Because language doesn't exist in a vacuum. Because it illustrates how much of the war on terror is hypocritical bullsh*t.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

I tend to think of terrorism as acts of assymetric warfare intending to cripple enemy morale by targeting the civilian population. Now, scientists working in a field that has military applications are kind of a gray zone, but given that neither israel nor the United States are at war with Iran at the moment, I'd put Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan squarely in the civilian bracket, and given that demoralizing an opponent and striking at important aren't mutually exclusive, I don't have a problem with labeling this an act of terrorism.

Especially since I haven't seen any remotely hard evidence that these scientists are actually making a nuclear weapon.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

If you'd provide your definition of terrorism, we probably could have skipped a whole bunch of posts already.

I doubt that.

I tend to think of terrorism as acts of assymetric warfare intending to cripple enemy morale by targeting the civilian population. Now, scientists working in a field that has military applications are kind of a gray zone, but given that neither israel nor the United States are at war with Iran at the moment, I'd put Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan squarely in the civilian bracket, and given that demoralizing an opponent and striking at important aren't mutually exclusive, I don't have a problem with labeling this an act of terrorism.

I do. They're not mutually exclusive, I agree, but just because an act demoralizes an opponent, that doesn't render the act terrorism. The 'terror' part of terrorism has to be a stronger element. I'd even say there's a difference between 'terror' and 'demoralization'.

However, whether this technically meets the definition of terrorism or not, we can probably all agree that assassinating scientists is all kinds of morally repugnant behaviour, yes?

I'd pretty much agree with that.

And if you accept that this was morally repugnant act, I don't see why you're tying yourself into knots trying to make this not terrorism. You decry the debasement of the word, but at the same time, you accept that it's "the worst word". You can't do both. "Terrorism" is an utterly debased label used to tar political opponents for as the very worst thing since Hitler for political gain.

I don't agree. I don't think it's "utterly debased." I don't think it's debased very much at all, actually, especially among the audience being targeted to keep voting our civil rights away. I'm afraid of this drive to expand the situations it covers, not just when we're talking about acts of the American government, but also acts of foreigners and even animal rights activists here in America.

Or do you really see assassination as being that much better?

In the case of scientists working not only in a field that has military applications but towards nuclear proliferation, I do.

This is why so many people are so keen on invoking that very worst of words. Because language doesn't exist in a vacuum. Because it illustrates how much of the war on terror is hypocritical bullsh*t.

I don't think we have to debase our language in order to illustrate that. I'm not ready to give up the fight for people who videotape abuses at an animal farm not to be called any t-word more terrible than than 'trespasser'.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we have to debase our language in order to illustrate that. I'm not ready to give up the fight for people who videotape abuses at an animal farm not to be called any t-word more terrible than than 'trespasser'.

How about if those trespassers then assassinate the ones doing the abuse?

Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal. Killing farm owners to stop an industry from accomplishing a culinary goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't abuse animals when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

Yonder wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't think we have to debase our language in order to illustrate that. I'm not ready to give up the fight for people who videotape abuses at an animal farm not to be called any t-word more terrible than than 'trespasser'.

How about if those trespassers then assassinate the ones doing the abuse?

Terrorism is about, well, terror as an integral part of the operation from planning to goal.

Killing farm owners to stop an industry from accomplishing a culinary goal is not terrorism because it doesn't work by means of terror. It works by means of preventing them from accomplishing their goal--you can't abuse animals when you're dead. However wrong or illegal it is, it's not terrorism.

My guess is an industrial farm owner has never seen the inside of a farm, let alone play as vital a role in the work being done as a nuclear scientist does in a nuclear weapons program. You'd probably have more success kidnapping him and putting him to work there--he'd probably wind up setting the place on fire by causing a machine to melt down.

That's if I didn't think most industrial farms are probably publicly held corporations and are 'owned' by things like pension plans and mutual fund investors.

As for assassinating the ones doing the abuse, this goes back to previous parts of the conversation: it's pretty easy to get someone to replace them. I'm not for murdering Iranian lab assistants.

I'd also like to think the forces that create the demand for nuclear weapons are much smaller and much more easily frustrated than those that create the demand for cheap meat.

Regardless of Cheeze's endearing inclination to draw every thread into a battle of semantics, I think common consensus (here at least) defines this as an act of terror. It's also important to consider the reaction if it was a US scientist that had been assassinated on US soil. I honestly don't think there would be any questions in that case, and if there was the barest hint of any other nation's involvement - real or imagined - the nuclear pitchforks would be out quicker than Obama could say 'Make it so!'.