Iran And The Utter Futility Of Sanctions?

The Bottom line
Iran And The Utter Futility Of Sanctions
April 6, 2010 |
Professor Louis Rene Beres

In the matter of Iranian nuclearization, U.S. President Barack Obama still doesn't get it. Economic sanctions will never work. In Tehran's national decision-making circles, absolutely nothing can compare to the immense power and status that would presumably come with membership in the Nuclear Club. Indeed, if President Ahmadinejad and his clerical masters truly believe in the Shiite apocalypse, an inevitable final battle against "unbelievers," they would likely be willing to accept even corollary military sanctions.
From the standpoint of the United States, a nuclear Iran would pose an unprecedented risk of mass-destruction terrorism. For much smaller Israel, of course, the security risk would be existential.
Legal issues are linked here to various strategic considerations. Supported by international law, specifically by the incontestable right of anticipatory self-defense, Prime Minister Netanyahu understands that any preemptive destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructures would involve enormous operational and political difficulties. True, Israel has deployed elements of the "Arrow" system of ballistic missile defense, but even the Arrow could not achieve a sufficiently high probability of intercept to protect civilian populations. Further, now that Mr. Obama has backed away from America's previously-planned missile shield deployment in Poland and the Czech Republic, Israel has no good reason to place its security hopes in any combined systems of active defense.
Even a single incoming nuclear missile that would manage to penetrate Arrow defenses could kill very large numbers of Israelis. Iran, moreover, could decide to share its developing nuclear assets with assorted terror groups, sworn enemies of Israel that would launch using automobiles and ships rather than missiles. These very same groups might seek "soft" targets in selected American or European cities - schools; universities; hospitals; hotels; sports stadiums; subways; etc.
While Obama and the "international community" still fiddles, Iran is plainly augmenting its incendiary intent toward Israel with a corresponding military capacity. Left to violate non-proliferation treaty (NPT) rules with impunity, Iran's leaders might ultimately be undeterred by any threats of an Israeli and/or American retaliation. Such a possible failure of nuclear deterrence could be the result of a presumed lack of threat credibility, or even of a genuine Iranian disregard for expected harms. In the worst-case scenario, Iran, animated by certain Shiite visions of inevitable conflict, could become the individual suicide bomber writ large. Such a dire prospect is improbable, but it is not unimaginable.
Iran's illegal nuclearization has already started a perilous domino effect, especially among certain Sunni Arab states in the region. Not long ago, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt revealed possible plans to develop their own respective nuclear capabilities. But strategic stability in a proliferating Middle East could never resemble US-USSR deterrence during the Cold War. Here, the critical assumption of rationality, which always makes national survival the very highest decisional preference, simply might not hold.
If, somehow, Iran does become fully nuclear, Israel will have to promptly reassess its core policy of nuclear ambiguity, and also certain related questions of targeting. These urgent issues were discussed candidly in my own "Project Daniel" final report, first delivered by hand to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on January 16, 2003.
Israel's security from mass-destruction attacks will depend in part upon its intended targets in Iran, and on the precise extent to which these targets have been expressly identified. For Israel's survival, it is not enough to merely have The Bomb. Rather, the adequacy of Israel's nuclear deterrence and preemption policies will depend largely upon (1) the presumed destructiveness of these nuclear weapons; and, (2) on where these weapons are thought to be targeted.
Mr. Obama's "Road Map" notwithstanding, a nuclear war in the Middle East is not out of the question. Soon, Israel will need to choose prudently between "assured destruction" strategies, and "nuclear war-fighting" strategies. Assured destruction strategies are sometimes called "counter-value" strategies or "mutual assured destruction" (MAD). Drawn from the Cold War, these are strategies of deterrence in which a country primarily targets its strategic weapons on the other side's civilian populations, and/or on its supporting civilian infrastructures.
Nuclear war-fighting measures, on the other hand, are called "counterforce" strategies. These are systems of deterrence wherein a country primarily targets its strategic nuclear weapons on the other side's major weapon systems, and on that state's supporting military assets.
There are distinctly serious survival consequences for choosing one strategy over the other. Israel could also opt for some sort of "mixed" strategy. Still, for Israel, any policy that might encourage nuclear war fighting should be rejected. This advice was an integral part of the once-confidential Project Daniel final report.
In choosing between the two basic strategic alternatives, Israel should always opt for nuclear deterrence based upon assured destruction. This seemingly insensitive recommendation might elicit opposition amid certain publics, but it is, in fact, more humane. A counterforce targeting doctrine would be less persuasive as a nuclear deterrent, especially to states whose leaders could willingly sacrifice entire armies as "martyrs."
If Israel were to opt for nuclear deterrence based upon counterforce capabilities, its enemies could also feel especially threatened. This condition could then enlarge the prospect of a nuclear aggression against Israel, and of a follow-on nuclear exchange.
Israel's decisions on counter-value versus counterforce doctrines will depend, in part, on prior investigations of enemy country inclinations to strike first; and on enemy country inclinations to strike all-at-once, or in stages. Should Israeli strategic planners assume that an enemy state in process of "going nuclear" is apt to strike first, and to strike with all of its nuclear weapons right away, Israeli counterforce-targeted warheads - used in retaliation - would hit only empty launchers. In such circumstances, Israel's only plausible application of counterforce doctrine would be to strike first itself, an option that Israel clearly and completely rejects. From the standpoint of intra-war deterrence, a counter-value strategy would prove vastly more appropriate to a fast peace.
Should Israeli planners assume that an enemy country "going nuclear" is apt to strike first, and to strike in a limited fashion, holding some measure of nuclear firepower in reserve, Israeli counterforce-targeted warheads could have some damage-limiting benefits. Here, counterforce operations could appear to serve both an Israeli non-nuclear preemption, or, should Israel decide not to preempt, an Israeli retaliatory strike. Nonetheless, the benefits to Israel of maintaining any counterforce targeting options are generally outweighed by the reasonably expected costs.
To protect itself against a relentlessly nuclearizing Iran, Israel's best course may still be to seize the conventional preemption option as soon as possible. (After all, a fully nuclear Iran that would actually welcome apocalyptic endings could bring incomparably higher costs to Israel.) Together with such a permissible option, Israel would have to reject any hint of a counterforce targeting doctrine. But if, as now seems clear, Iran is allowed to continue with its illegal nuclear weapons development, Mr. Netanyahu's correct response should be to quickly end Israel's historic policy of nuclear ambiguity.
Such a doctrinal termination could permit Israel to enhance its nuclear deterrence posture, but only in regard to a fully rational Iranian adversary. If, after all, Iran's leaders were to resemble the suicide bomber in macrocosm, they might not be deterred by any expected level of Israeli retaliation.
No country can be required to participate in its own annihilation. Without a prompt and major change in President Obama's persistently naive attitude toward Iran, a law-enforcing expression of anticipatory self-defense may still offer Israel its only remaining survival option. This will sound unconvincing to many, but rational decision-making - in all fields of human endeavor - is based upon informed comparisons of expected costs and expected benefits.
Does President Obama really believe that both we and the Israelis can somehow live with a nuclear Iran? If he does, he should be reminded that a nuclear balance-of-terror in the Middle East could never replicate the earlier stability of U.S.-Soviet mutual deterrence.
This would not be your father's Cold War.
________________________________________
PROFESSOR LOUIS RENE BERES, Professor of Political Science at Purdue, was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971). Born in Zurich, Switzerland, at the end of World War II, he is the author of many major books, monographs and articles dealing with international law, strategic theory, Israeli nuclear policy, and regional nuclear war. In Israel, where he served as Chair of Project Daniel, his work is known to selected military and intelligence communities.
Disclaimer:
This article is the author's personal opinion and is not the opinion or policy of Myths and Facts.

The effect of body-image on females.

The body-image: is it real or myth?
Confessions of a dieting junkie!

Much is being said at the moment about the psychological effect of the thin ‘body image’ on young females, as portrayed in popular magazines by those skinny models on the world’s fashion catwalks. This has been suggested as leading to young girls' dieting to extremes and ending up suffering from anorexia nervosa.

On the other hand, we seem to have an epidemic of obesity among children and adults.
Fat outstrips smoking as leading premature killer.(The Age, 9/4/'10).
So which of these extremes is the more dangerous and where does ‘body image’ come into it? Obesity leads to other diseases, such as heart, diabetes, stress on the joints and bones, etc. Don’t fat people see themselves as fat,- only the thin ones do? What kind of body-image do they prefer? Do they see themselves as 'thin', or at least thinner?

I have recently experienced changes in my own body's shape and suddenly when I started to look in the mirror, my perception of how I look to myself has also changed. After years of slowly piling on the kilos,- at the rate of just 1 kg. per year, who notices? But after 15 years and 15 kg.,with dress sizes gradually changing through 12, 14, 16, even 18,- everyone but me did notice it and I decided that perhaps the time has come to do something about it. The major shock was hearing the medical specialist who weighed and measured me, telling me that according to my BMI ( body mass index) I was obese!

Over the years, looking at myself in the mirror, dressed in the kind of clothes that hid my bulges, I talked myself into thinking that I am ‘plump’,- only jokingly complaining that I am getting fat,- but never considered myself obese! I then listened to what the Dr. suggested that I should start doing to get down to a below obesity-BMI level and slowly, with some hard work and determination I began to lose those extra kilos and the fat!

I began to look at myself in the mirror with a lot more confidence and began choosing a different style of dressing. Instead of covering my waistline and bottom, I was quite happy to accentuate them,- ‘showing them off’!

Am I thin? Hardly! Thinner,- according to all who see me,- certainly, yes! I have some lovely clothes in my wardrobe which I constantly take to the dressmaker to take in so that I can wear them more comfortably. But it is this which makes me realize that the whole notion of ‘body image’ is actually very real!When I try on some of my previously favourite blouses in my wardrobe nowadays,I quickly take them off once I look at myself in the mirror! Why?

Because the style of clothes I used to buy, now seem to make me look fat and I don’t like it! I feel fatter now, in fact than I ever did before! Can this feeling fat make me diet more,- could I become anorexic? Hardly,- my hunger pains,- and sweet tooth,- will ensure to keep me from ever going down that path of continuing self-denial! But I can understand how a younger and immature girl could end up thus. (I am constantly urging my adult skinny daughter to eat up!) When people compliment me nowadays that I look ‘terrific’,- I know that they only compare me with how I looked before! I don’t believe I look so great,- yet!

The reality is that I am no longer satisfied with my own body image, even at my age! Therefore I am convinced that the whole body-image story is not a myth, - it is real alright! However, a more positive result I note these days is the effect that the exercise associated with my weight-loss program has on my energy level! This I consider to be the major benefit of undertaking any weight-loss program,- particularly in our senior years, on top of the positive psychological effect of our self-image.

Therefore I strongly recommend that everyone undertake both a sensible dietary regimen (low GI suits me and my family best of all,-very easy too!) and a moderate exercise program, for that feeling of energy and self-confidence at whatever age they may be.
Ref. www.bmiweight.com.au
MM

Comments received.
It is very sad that some females diet to the extreme as they are influenced by the peer group and un-real images in the media
These victims are immersed in themselves; totally
You; on the other had; have devoted your life to the Jewish Community and therefore had more important issues to think about; other than weight!
D. K.

RE: body image, I suffer all my life with it, have had a complex that I am fat, this is how I see myself. However, I will never be skinny, as I 'live to eat', love sweets, etc.
A lot of it is 'compensation' or boredom......I know these are excuses. As I get older I try to dismiss negative thoughts and concentrate on my achievements, being thin is not my aim in life. I have learned to like myself, and accept for what I am. When I look around I am not fat or thin, but somewhere in between. I try to be sensible when attending functions, not to eat anything deep fried. His (low GI) diet also helps, as I do not cook potatoes, rice, pastas, I have learned to manage without. (RR)

I have looked at the article on your blog, and find it very good. You are quite right. The hue and cry that is taking place now, I believe is generated by the government, as well as the various sections of the public. The govt. because it is finding and funding a very large increase in childhood diseases attributed directly to obesity and inactivity in children due to TV & TVgames. And then you have the other end of the spectrum, where children who are influenced and pressured by images such as barby dolls, fashions for stick figures etc. virtually starve themselves to fit the image. So that some are starving themselves to death by not eating, while others are doing it, in the other extreme. These self same children grow up to be adults, if they are lucky, and so the cycle goes on.

My mother was petite and never fat. She always said to me. "Never go on diets. Whatever you will take off you will put on double. I have tried to keep it mind, not always successfully.

Nowadays however, with the stresses in our lives,-this applies to both young and old, we tend to be divided into two camps. One is a couch potato, and poo poohs the stick body image portrayed, and is fairly content, unless shocked by illness or something else. While the other considers the stick figure image advertised and portrayed, as the ultimate in health and looks. Thus body image can take many forms as I see it. Both believe they are right........Most importantly I believe, the middle path of moderation is never mentioned. Moderation in eating, sleeping,sport, exercise etc. That I believe is the correct body image!.......If it can be achieved!!
Good luck with what you are doing. You look like you are going in the right direction. (T.W.)