Kasparov, as a Ukrainian-American I am a fan of both your political work and your illustrious career, but one specific line from this piece echoes the sentiments, in my view, that directly led to the catastrophe which was American involvement in the Middle East post 9/11. “If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution.” I am in no way a moral relativist, and I revile state led religious extremism, with Islamism being, unfortunately , at the forefront of some of the most vile human rights abuses in modern history. This being said, this is exactly the type of slop that was shoveled into American’s heads from the Bush administration in partially justifying militarily involvement in the Middle East, framing it as a global struggle for freedom, liberation, especially that of the women in Iraq and Afghanistan (https://naapr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/saving_muslim_women-_feminism_u.s_policy_and_the_war_on_terror_-_university_of_san_francisco_usf.pdf). Unless you opt for a complete occupation, you cannot and will not externally end the human rights abuses that Iranian citizens face (I wrote a piece about the role of militarily occupations earlier this year for anyone interested) and suggesting so is a slap in the face to the Iranian civilians which have already and will continue to suffer under Israeli bombs. The question for you is how morally culpable is a civilian population, especially a suppressed one like in Iran, to the actions of its government. Further, I think there is one other line of reasoning which connects the current conflict with Iran and American justification for Iraq: how long has Iran supposedly been on the precipice of nuclear strength? I looked it up the other day, the first American report that Iran was approaching weapons grade uranium was 1989, I believe. 36 years and they still aren’t nuclear capable (unlike Israel, I should mention if your concern is staying within the boundaries of international law regarding nukes). To me, this smells of the justification in Iraq, supposed WMDs which were never found, and appeals to human rights abuses there. We must stop repeating history.
War can clearly change circumstances in massive, quick, and/or unpredictable ways. It just happened in Syria last year for example.
This attack by Israel may be one of the times in which more war brings positive benefits. Iran was already weakened by Israel smashing its proxies, it’s loathed by its neighbors, and its drones kill Ukrainians every night. The Iranian government is an enemy of the US and ally of Putin so hurting Iran is often helpful.
And Netanyahu mostly takes the short-sighted and immoral choice. Support Hamas to weaken the PLO - check. Expand illegal settlements - check. Avoid a hostage deal in order to keep fighting in Gaza - check. Continue fighting in Lebanon even after destroying Hezbollah leadership - check. Kill the Oct 7 attack’s leaders and continue to bomb children - check.
All these aim to ensure Palestinians never have a state which is both immoral and short sighted because it means Israel will always be at war. So with the attack on Iran I am cautious about hoping when I don’t trust Israel’s goals.
As I told a fellow traveler yesterday - to his great shock and consternation - I have never seen Iran as NEARLY the existential (much less real) danger to the Middle East (much less the world) that so many others do.
As a preface, we can blame the current situation on Trump, for ending the nuclear deal that was successful in keeping Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. But set that aside.
It takes a LOT of time to obtain and process the materials for a nuclear weapon, even more time to build the weapon, and even MORE time before it can be used. And it takes even MORE time to actually build up an arsenal of such weapons. Thus, even if Iran began in earnest today, it would take a minimum of three to five years (and probably longer) for them to have actual "nuclear strike capability."
But then the question arises: even if they HAD nukes, what makes anyone think that Iran would automatically turn them on Israel? Or that the other Arab states - no matter their commonalities with Iran - would necessarily support such a move? Don't forget - the fallout from a nuclear strike on Israel would waft into the surrounding Arab countries, harming and/or killing hundreds, thousands, possibly millions of Arabs. I also think that Iran is aware of this, despite their animosity toward Israel.
Finally, there is the U.S. question. Iran has to be aware that if it ever actually launched a nuclear weapon into Israel, not only does Israel have its own counter-nukes (assuming it ha time to launch them), but the U.S. would quickly turn Iran into a parking lot. Again, Iran cannot be unaware of this possibility.
No, nukes is not what concerns me - or should concern anyone - about Iran. It is their support of multiple "terrorist" organizations that DO launch small, mostly ineffective strikes against Israel and Israelis. In this regard, Hamas "got lucky" in its 10/7 strike, because Israel has been so fractured politically over Netanyahu and the authoritarian road he wants to take Israel down that they were not paying close enough attention.
I do not think any continued conflagration between Israel and Iran is going to amount to much, either in the "small picture" (as Garry notes, Iran is not all of a sudden going to become a constitutional democracy; and Iran is not going to "destroy" Israel) or in the "big picture" (i.e., this is not going to cause WWIII or any significant re-alignment of nations - except possibly causing SOME anti-Iranian sentiment in other Arab nations).
None of this is to say that I approve of Netanyahu's pre-emptive strike, which I think was at best unnecessary, and at worst plain stupid. But I have to agree with Garry's overall sentiment here (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) that the current situation is not going to have much effect, either locally or globally, though we will obviously have to now keep a slightly more active eye out in the region.
Well said by a first hand witness. I’m not able to agree or disagree with Mr. K at this time. I need to do more independent research. A responsibility I embrace energetically and enthusiasm. As for the moment I feel straight jacketed by the politics of expediency practiced by the forever in survival mode left on one hand and by the politics of greed and fundamentalist religion practiced by the ascendant right on the other. I’d like if I could to call down a pox on both their houses but both their “houses” but the reality is that we all of us live together in one house (to extend my metaphor). There is No Exit as Sartre averred. The cynic in me wants to say that this condition is by design. One that serve and sustain both “houses”. I’m a Democrat. More precisely a Wanna Be Democrat. As such I want new, fresh, strong, courageous, Democratic leadership. And I want it NOW before it’s too late. … Don, a new Next Move subscriber.
Good, incisive article. There was also already an ongoing threat from Iran of political assassination against former administration officials here in America like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.
Gary, how much of Putin's 3 legged chair (Iran, North Korea, and China) which supports his war on Ukraine has been toppled by Israel's attack on Iran? What will be the impact of this war between Israel and Iran have on the future of the war in Ukraine?
Much, Ukraine help Israel and the west by getting rid of Russia and Iran influence over Syria and damaging the forces that helped hezbolla. Would be naive to think that this will not affect china, Russia and North Korea directly
The ideal but most difficult outcome: a Persian Spring that deposes the Ayatollah regime. Most of the other options including the Iraq War option could well make Vietnam & Afghanistan look like a picnic, given Iran is bigger & stronger than Iraq under Saddam. Especially if Trump breaks his own America First pledge of "no more forever wars".
I am reminded of that photo of Obama after Russia's first (recent) invasion of Ukraine in 2013(?) looking down at Putin with a severe expression, while Putin, not disconcerted in the least, tries not to smirk. Yeah, Obama, Putin's not going to care by a glare without action. Hillary Clinton would have known better.
Your piece is a forceful challenge to the status quo mindset in foreign policy, but it risks underestimating the unpredictable consequences of military escalation and regime collapse.
There are unlimited reasons to avoid confronting oppression. The slow grind of thug totalitarianism is ever on the move. We have lost the idealism of President Kennedy who noted we would bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty.
“If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or scores of Argentinian Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires synagogue without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.”
Thank you Mr. Kasparov for having a spine. The fact that the USA is not leading the charge to take down Iran’s nuclear weapons program is surprising to me. I smell timidity—an abdication of duty to safeguard the world. Thank you, Israel, for fulfilling God’s purposes in the punishment of nations. Iranian dissidents who advocated for the God given rights of man, who were hunted for their lives for opposing the brutality of the Islamic Republic—these are now celebrating. Thank you, again, Israel.
Kasparov, as a Ukrainian-American I am a fan of both your political work and your illustrious career, but one specific line from this piece echoes the sentiments, in my view, that directly led to the catastrophe which was American involvement in the Middle East post 9/11. “If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution.” I am in no way a moral relativist, and I revile state led religious extremism, with Islamism being, unfortunately , at the forefront of some of the most vile human rights abuses in modern history. This being said, this is exactly the type of slop that was shoveled into American’s heads from the Bush administration in partially justifying militarily involvement in the Middle East, framing it as a global struggle for freedom, liberation, especially that of the women in Iraq and Afghanistan (https://naapr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/saving_muslim_women-_feminism_u.s_policy_and_the_war_on_terror_-_university_of_san_francisco_usf.pdf). Unless you opt for a complete occupation, you cannot and will not externally end the human rights abuses that Iranian citizens face (I wrote a piece about the role of militarily occupations earlier this year for anyone interested) and suggesting so is a slap in the face to the Iranian civilians which have already and will continue to suffer under Israeli bombs. The question for you is how morally culpable is a civilian population, especially a suppressed one like in Iran, to the actions of its government. Further, I think there is one other line of reasoning which connects the current conflict with Iran and American justification for Iraq: how long has Iran supposedly been on the precipice of nuclear strength? I looked it up the other day, the first American report that Iran was approaching weapons grade uranium was 1989, I believe. 36 years and they still aren’t nuclear capable (unlike Israel, I should mention if your concern is staying within the boundaries of international law regarding nukes). To me, this smells of the justification in Iraq, supposed WMDs which were never found, and appeals to human rights abuses there. We must stop repeating history.
War can clearly change circumstances in massive, quick, and/or unpredictable ways. It just happened in Syria last year for example.
This attack by Israel may be one of the times in which more war brings positive benefits. Iran was already weakened by Israel smashing its proxies, it’s loathed by its neighbors, and its drones kill Ukrainians every night. The Iranian government is an enemy of the US and ally of Putin so hurting Iran is often helpful.
And Netanyahu mostly takes the short-sighted and immoral choice. Support Hamas to weaken the PLO - check. Expand illegal settlements - check. Avoid a hostage deal in order to keep fighting in Gaza - check. Continue fighting in Lebanon even after destroying Hezbollah leadership - check. Kill the Oct 7 attack’s leaders and continue to bomb children - check.
All these aim to ensure Palestinians never have a state which is both immoral and short sighted because it means Israel will always be at war. So with the attack on Iran I am cautious about hoping when I don’t trust Israel’s goals.
As I told a fellow traveler yesterday - to his great shock and consternation - I have never seen Iran as NEARLY the existential (much less real) danger to the Middle East (much less the world) that so many others do.
As a preface, we can blame the current situation on Trump, for ending the nuclear deal that was successful in keeping Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. But set that aside.
It takes a LOT of time to obtain and process the materials for a nuclear weapon, even more time to build the weapon, and even MORE time before it can be used. And it takes even MORE time to actually build up an arsenal of such weapons. Thus, even if Iran began in earnest today, it would take a minimum of three to five years (and probably longer) for them to have actual "nuclear strike capability."
But then the question arises: even if they HAD nukes, what makes anyone think that Iran would automatically turn them on Israel? Or that the other Arab states - no matter their commonalities with Iran - would necessarily support such a move? Don't forget - the fallout from a nuclear strike on Israel would waft into the surrounding Arab countries, harming and/or killing hundreds, thousands, possibly millions of Arabs. I also think that Iran is aware of this, despite their animosity toward Israel.
Finally, there is the U.S. question. Iran has to be aware that if it ever actually launched a nuclear weapon into Israel, not only does Israel have its own counter-nukes (assuming it ha time to launch them), but the U.S. would quickly turn Iran into a parking lot. Again, Iran cannot be unaware of this possibility.
No, nukes is not what concerns me - or should concern anyone - about Iran. It is their support of multiple "terrorist" organizations that DO launch small, mostly ineffective strikes against Israel and Israelis. In this regard, Hamas "got lucky" in its 10/7 strike, because Israel has been so fractured politically over Netanyahu and the authoritarian road he wants to take Israel down that they were not paying close enough attention.
I do not think any continued conflagration between Israel and Iran is going to amount to much, either in the "small picture" (as Garry notes, Iran is not all of a sudden going to become a constitutional democracy; and Iran is not going to "destroy" Israel) or in the "big picture" (i.e., this is not going to cause WWIII or any significant re-alignment of nations - except possibly causing SOME anti-Iranian sentiment in other Arab nations).
None of this is to say that I approve of Netanyahu's pre-emptive strike, which I think was at best unnecessary, and at worst plain stupid. But I have to agree with Garry's overall sentiment here (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) that the current situation is not going to have much effect, either locally or globally, though we will obviously have to now keep a slightly more active eye out in the region.
Well said by a first hand witness. I’m not able to agree or disagree with Mr. K at this time. I need to do more independent research. A responsibility I embrace energetically and enthusiasm. As for the moment I feel straight jacketed by the politics of expediency practiced by the forever in survival mode left on one hand and by the politics of greed and fundamentalist religion practiced by the ascendant right on the other. I’d like if I could to call down a pox on both their houses but both their “houses” but the reality is that we all of us live together in one house (to extend my metaphor). There is No Exit as Sartre averred. The cynic in me wants to say that this condition is by design. One that serve and sustain both “houses”. I’m a Democrat. More precisely a Wanna Be Democrat. As such I want new, fresh, strong, courageous, Democratic leadership. And I want it NOW before it’s too late. … Don, a new Next Move subscriber.
Good, incisive article. There was also already an ongoing threat from Iran of political assassination against former administration officials here in America like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo.
Gary, how much of Putin's 3 legged chair (Iran, North Korea, and China) which supports his war on Ukraine has been toppled by Israel's attack on Iran? What will be the impact of this war between Israel and Iran have on the future of the war in Ukraine?
Much, Ukraine help Israel and the west by getting rid of Russia and Iran influence over Syria and damaging the forces that helped hezbolla. Would be naive to think that this will not affect china, Russia and North Korea directly
The ideal but most difficult outcome: a Persian Spring that deposes the Ayatollah regime. Most of the other options including the Iraq War option could well make Vietnam & Afghanistan look like a picnic, given Iran is bigger & stronger than Iraq under Saddam. Especially if Trump breaks his own America First pledge of "no more forever wars".
I am reminded of that photo of Obama after Russia's first (recent) invasion of Ukraine in 2013(?) looking down at Putin with a severe expression, while Putin, not disconcerted in the least, tries not to smirk. Yeah, Obama, Putin's not going to care by a glare without action. Hillary Clinton would have known better.
Thats a GOOD thing. The way liberals play victim all day, we can all agree that things need to change.
Your piece is a forceful challenge to the status quo mindset in foreign policy, but it risks underestimating the unpredictable consequences of military escalation and regime collapse.
There are unlimited reasons to avoid confronting oppression. The slow grind of thug totalitarianism is ever on the move. We have lost the idealism of President Kennedy who noted we would bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty.
This is a great Paragraph!
“If you are worried about innocent people being killed, as Rhodes claims to be, spare a thought for the millions of Iranians who face imprisonment, torture, or death if they dare deviate from the strict precepts of the Islamic Revolution. Or the hundreds of thousands of Syrians whose murder Iran was an accomplice to. Or the Ukrainian civilians who have found themselves on the receiving end of over 8,000 Iranian-made suicide drones over the past three years. Or scores of Argentinian Jews blown up in a Buenos Aires synagogue without even the thinnest of martial pretexts.”
The collapse of FIAT Currencies may yield a more liberal Iran.
Thank you Mr. Kasparov for having a spine. The fact that the USA is not leading the charge to take down Iran’s nuclear weapons program is surprising to me. I smell timidity—an abdication of duty to safeguard the world. Thank you, Israel, for fulfilling God’s purposes in the punishment of nations. Iranian dissidents who advocated for the God given rights of man, who were hunted for their lives for opposing the brutality of the Islamic Republic—these are now celebrating. Thank you, again, Israel.
Excellent article.
Here Here!