Nuke Iran now. Before Holocaust II. The west owes Israel that at least.

The part of me without hope of any peace sort of wishes Iran would nuke Israel ... and then the Israeli survivors could drop 10 or 20 nukes on each of the 10 most despotic countries in the middle east.

But really ... do we need that?

No.

Just nuke Iran.

It will teach them a lesson.

Big.Glass.Parking.Lot.

First of all, thanks for a great blog! Secondly, warm congratulations to your good lady and yourself on arrival of the bearer of the proud name Preston Davis Green! And finally, with reference to your Open Letter, go read the excellent speach given by José María Aznar, http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/.
NOW.
Kind regards
JD

I sincerely believe we should send a message very like that letter to Europe.

There comes a time when you need to call someone's bluff.

Just say, "Iran is your job. Show us how it's done. If you succeed, we are a practical people, and will be pleased. If not, you have no one but yourselves to blame (and the Iranians, of course).

P.S. Nice work in Rwanda and Bosnia. Sudan too."

The current dynamic - Europe talks carrots, while the U.S. talks sticks is not stable.

I think the benefits of having the Europeans publicly demonstrate their impotence, without the USAF bailing them out, would have certain benefits. At least, it would clarify things.

I share your sentiment, Stephen.

I am from Denmark, which is about what passes for a pro-American bastion in continental Western Europe these days, and that sure ain't saying much.

One of the points which so many people over here have forgotten is that diplomatic weight is much less about skilled diplomats and clever use of language (though they can be useful), and very much to do about a having a big credible stick in the other hand. By emasculating the ability to project power, the major European nations have automatically made their own favored means of resolving conflicts, i.e. diplomacy, very much less effective. There is only one remaining arrow in the quiver, namely the ability to allow or deny access to European markets and goods. But the potency of a threat is measured in the probability of it being carried out. So basically, all of the EU's diplomatic power vis à vis Iran, rests on the credibility of the EU enacting economic sanctions with a bite. But all sanctions bite back, and therefore the leaders of the EU (if one will forgive the oxymoron) must accept some negative economic spillover. And how likely is that given the anemic economies they are (mis)managing?

Not very.

And that is really too bad, since an immediate and complete embargo of Iran would be a fine way of telling the Iranian population, yearning for some prosperity after decades of ossified theocracy, that their President may be riding around in a Peugeot, but they sure won't.

For the US, on the other hand, there is no economic stick, since there is no trade with Iran. There is, however, the military option, as indicated by your post. One of course hopes that it is not used, but one must never be seen as hoping this, since then the threat loses force. This is what the leaders of Old Europe and most of the Democrats apparently have forgotten.

One of the salutory effects of going to war in Iraq and winning quickly, was the immense power this added to American diplomatic potency. This was true regardless of whether on thought the war justified or not. Back in the summer of 2003, the US carried an enormous stick. And this frightened a lot of people, not just in the Middle East, but also in (old) Europe and in the US media and the US left. As a force for diplomatic pressure, very little beats an unconquerable military and a leader who will do what he thinks is right, no matter what everyone else thinks. In retrospect, that would have been the best time to push the Iranians.

Unfortunately, over the last 2½ years, the Western media and the Western left have proved very skilled at eroding the credibility of a US military threat against Iran, by basically attacking every single possible angle (no WMDs, no planning, ulterior motives, illegal war, war crimes, torture, neo-con chickenhawks, etc), by underplaying positive results, and relentlessly focusing on everything that has not gone perfectly. (note: I am not saying this was the ultimate purpose, merely that this is a definite result, and one that Tehran is likely quite satisfied with)

The main result of this is that very few think the US has the stomach to take on Iran militarily, given all the flak it has received on Iraq, and that means that the stick is not as credible as it was back then.

It is probably only the degree to which President Bush is seen as unpredictable that makes any threat less than idle.

I think we need some real creative ideas as to how we can push for an internal revolution in Iran. But time is running out, and the outlook is not very happy.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but not without the sword.

I wouldn't count on (western/old)Europe for anything. They are in a death spiral. Demographically and in spirit.

Soren,

Thanks for posting. You clarified several issues for me, and very eloquently.

Stephen,
What makes you think Europe cares if Israel gets blown off the map ?

--Your kind of diplomacy gave chemical weapons technology to Saddam Hussein. Your kind of diplomacy sells jet fighters and stealth-defeating radars to whoever has the cash to buy them. Your kind of diplomacy is the same kind of diplomacy you used to coddle a certain German tyrant 70 years ago.--

I have come to the conclusion that we are the enemy.

We have always been the enemy.

We will always be the enemy until we're as miserable as they are.

--

Soren, beg, borrow, steal and buy some RE in FLA and get the hell out like some anglos are doing.
They've been buying up parts of Orlando for a couple of years now.

Since we did Europe's dirty work in the Balkans in the Nineties, the Europeans just assume we'll take care of everything and they can play kvetcher. We even listened to them and didn't go to Baghdad in 1991. Big mistake. We should make it clear that we solve no more of their problems and only deal with bad guys who kill our people. More and more, Clinton is revealed as a foreign policy disaster. And Bush 41 wasn't much better.

ps.

if you don't publicly support us from here on out, we are pulling all our troops and promises of protection out, so when Iran's missiles can reach your country don't bother asking for our help on missile defense (aka Star Wars, remember that saving your ass program).

Mr. Speirs, I was corrected when I made the point that we listened to "the world" when we didn't go into Baghdad.

It seems Mr. Scowcroft is taking credit for that.

Wrong again....

Great post, Stephen. The problem, as always when talking about Europe, is a fatalism brought about by centuries of destructive, internicine warfare. That's why the Gallic shrug when Iran is mentioned or the dismissive wave by the Germans when you talk about nukes.

They are so inured to disaster they can't think straight. They were about to surrender when the wall fell.

They can never be relied on for anything.

Yea, you have a talent to write letters. Nice one!

Stephan, Very well said! Post that in the BBC talking points when the opportunity arises, and it will!

editing note: You might want to change reign to rein in "rein it in".

Belomi: Thank you for the kind words.

Neil:
I think the vast majority, like me, would be completely horrified at a nuclear strike against Israel. But I also think that because the idea is so terrible, almost everyone is pretending it can't happen. When I quote Ahmadinejad's words to them, everyone goes into denial mode: Oh, he doesn't mean that literally, he is posturing, and so on.
And when I then say, ok, maybe so, but should we not also consider the possibility that he really truly means it? And they all get a blank stare and say "no, he can't mean it."
Complete denial.

Sandy P:
The US is not too keen on giving green cards to Danes, for some reason, but the thought has occurred more than once. But it may be a bit late for me. Anyway, FL is not my bag (if I wanted heat I'd prefer a drier kind, like Arizona), but I am going to make sure my kids get the opportunity to emigrate to the US (or maybe Australia).

Robert:
For an avowed realist, Bush 41 seems to have been very naive. He declined to go to Baghdad because it would have fractured the alliance he had gathered to kick Saddam out of Kuwait (which purpose had then been fulfilled, which should have meant that his coalition was no longer very relevant). But he seemed to think that because everyone supported him on one issue, that he could usher in a new world order and that they would support the US in various other projects. I guess not.

Scotty:
Pulling US troops out of Europe (and S.Korea for that matter) is long overdue (should have been done more than ten years ago). It reminds me of an old joke we used to tell: The difference between the Soviets and the Americans is that when the Soviets get mad they threaten to send their troops, while the Americans threaten to pull theirs out.

Europeans don't realize that it is better to fight a war too soon than to fight a war too late.
If WWII had started the minute Hitler sent troops to the Rhine valley (or even the next day), there would have been no WWII. It would have been a 7-days war, tops.
Better to fight Iran before they get nukes than after. Fewer people will die, including Iranians.

At that point, given the abysmal readiness of the Wehrmacht, they would barely have had to fight the German Army, they could just arrest it.

Well, given the fact that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a result of a CIA covert action trying to fight the Russians, given that Saddam Hussein got money and weapons from the CIA to fight against the Shah, and given that it was the CIA who provided Iran with plans for nukes, I suggest nuking Washington in order to prevent any future problem in this regard.

The world still remembers that Bush tried to dupe the world about WMD, in order to pull the United Nations into the Iraq conflict. And now you're bitching?

Really, the USA is more part of the problem than part of the solution.

Andreas:

Well, lessee:

1. The CIA and the US did not create the Taliban, any more than US aid to Great Britain in WWI helped create the IRA.

It's true only if you ignore the intermediaries and the separation in time between the rise of the Taliban (late 1990s) and the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1989).

2. Two major errors (really, Andreas, a little Googling) in your second claim:

A. The Iraqis did not fight the Shah. The US supported the Shah, and the Iraqis knew they would've been soundly defeated by the Iranian military under the Shah.

B. The US was not a major supporter of Iraq in its war with Iran (which occurred after the fall of the Shah). The largest purveyor of arms to Iraq were the Soviet Union (which had supported Saddam long before the Shah's demise), followed by China and France.

SIPRI has figures for arms sales and down in the weeds are the US and the UK. There's a reason all the Iraqi military equipment was Soviet-model gear (see any video from the first Gulf War as an example), and why the standard weapon was the AK-47 and not the M-16.

"1" and "2," of course, occur in the context of the Cold War. I guess the Soviet Union, Communism, gulags, famines, all that sort of thing is far less dangerous, in Andreas' eyes, than the US. Gotcha.

3. I see a story from Jim Risen that claims that the CIA handed the data over as part of a larger effort to fizzle their bomb development program. It would seem that what we have is further claims from "unnamed sources" about what the CIA did and did not do.

Given your fears of the US, would it make you feel better if our "unnamed sources" told you that, in fact, w/ the Gnomes of Zurich and the Illuminati, US intelligence actually manipulates everything, and does so successfully?

Guess what, one just did.

All we ask is that you play to your strength and admit defeat already.

Now that was a beautiful line. :-)

We need to establish a new policy, which is that "attempting to join the nuclear club makes you liable for nuclear attack." The idea that "nukes make you safe from attack" is what's driving a lot of the desire among Third World hellholes to get nukes. Establishing that getting them gets you attacked would ahve a very salutory effect.

There's a deep misunderstanding about Europe here, probably due to the USA being comparatively short-termist.

Europe does not think being "nice" will work (remember Suez?). Only Europe has learned that it cannot take any intiatives (remember Suez?).

That's why European militaries have atrophied, why Europe wanted the USA in on the Balkans (for fear that any initiative would be undercut if it wasn't), and why Europe won't strengthen up (why, when there would be no discretion in what was done with the forces?).

European military reductions are not a cause of military impotence but a symptom - the recognition that the USA has consistently undercut the possibility of independent action since the '50s (there was only just enough left for the Falklands campaign).

The US took over the global policeman role and displaced the policing efforts others were applying after their own hard learning curve - only, the US's cultural history rejected the sound reasons for European behaviour that it squelched (remember Suez?), and made it that much harder for the US to learn the lessons in its turn.

What is more, the limited ethical justifications for imperialism do not apply to interfering with civilised countries and Europe (remembering more distant history like Greece and Rome) has a well founded fear that a USA without full understanding might well do the same sort of thing as Rome once did to Greece - liberate yet inadvertently destroy.

A curious side effect of all this is that practically all European special forces are man for man better than US ones (equipment not considered). Dutch marines are better than US ones, and so on. But quantity has a quality all its own, and ordinary forces are much less motivated too.

And in regard to Iran, well, that is European initiative on the diplomatic front, just not aligned with current official US policy. It may well be misdirected, but there's no value to Europe in helping the USA there (no, really).

The values are indeed different, for instance "Europe" doesn't care in the slightest about the survival of the state of Israel as such, though it does not desire massacre either. But it sees little to choose between what it sees as two lots of ragheads who are already killing each other.

Enough of the frivolity. Europe can indeed help.
http://emotionalrex.blogspot.com/2006/01/iran-assembling-nuclear-missile-send.html

Lurking Observer:

1. The US supplied weapons to the Taliban, and that gave them an edge over the other groups there. An intelligence operation that severely misfired.

2. I stand corrected, the USA was only a minor supplier to Iraq. But they sold weapons to Iran too, to finance a certain conflict in Nicaragua. I'm sorry I forgot about this outstanding example of US foreign policy.

"But the commies!" is a typical US reaction, by the way. Hey, Soviet communism (it wasn't communism and they didn't even claim it was, but who expects US education to teach the finer points there) was bad, no doubt. But given the choice between Soviet totalitarism and US imperialism, I prefer a nice, solid democracy with reasonable foreign policy. You're not, just in case this wasn't obvious enough. US gulags (Guantanamo, Abu Ghureib come to mind) are just as bad as Soviet gulags.

Your president is wiping his ass with the constitution, and everybody who still believes in actual freedom and democracy is weeping.

3. The "nutcase conspiracy theory" argument. No, I just don't blindly believe everything I hear. In this particular case, there's no obvious proof that this information is indeed correct. But I keep hearing about a certain double agent messing up the complete CIA Iran operation. Too bad.

And in the end, there are enough documented covert ops we know about to be sure the CIA actually exists and executes such operations. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing in the CIA, and CIA operations.

But denying anything is always a good strategy. Like in the Abu Ghureib torture case: we've been asked to believe that this wasn't an issue of policy, but a blunder of some low-ranking personnel. Until Rumsfeld steps up in the Congress, and asks for an exemption in the law forbidding torture. In the name of freedom and democracy, no less. Excuse me, I have to puke.

Andreas (Andread):

Given that you just equated Gitmo with Soviet Gulags, your credibility has evaporated. Typical leftist garbage. When you have completed your tutorial on Gitmo and what we allow the prisoners access to while in confinement, as compared to the Soviet (left wing wannabees) treatment of prisoners, come back here with some credible conversation.

r/ Bedrock Guy

Bedrock Guy:

I happen to see that in both Guantanamo and the Gulags people are/have been held without a fair trial, and torture is applied. Heck, it even goes as far as ex-Gulags being used by the CIA.

You're argument seems to be "that's leftist thinking and therefore you're a leftist and therefore your arguments are invalid." That's ridiculous on an enormous scale. What happened to critical thinking in the US? Just for the records, I grew up in East Germany, and bloody know the difference between freedom and a totalitarian state. You're heading straight towards the latter, let me tell you. And that's not a left vs right issue.

Also, we have no reliable third party source on what's really going on in Abu Ghureib, Guantanamo and the like. We do have reports from some of the people imprisoned there, and a couple of nice photo shots. And boy, it doesn't look pretty.

And the fact that you probably grant a meal a day and a copy of the Quran to well-behaving prisoners doesn't make practices like waterboarding any less of an act of torture.

But even if we put treatment of prisoners aside, there's still the issue of fair trial. The Bill of Rights clearly states "nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". What happened to that?

If this wasn't such a tragedy, I'd be inclined to point with fingers to the U.S. and laugh about a county so pathetic it promptly forgets about the very values that make up freedom and democracy, just because a few thousand people lost their lives.

Andreas, why don't you start by comparing the death tolls from our prisons vs. the gulag archipelago. Moron.

From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
To: sgreen@vodkaoundit.com
Date: Jan 8, 4:36 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

europe@europe.eu

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: DNS Error: NO_SUCH_THING_AS_EUROPE. Please try [country][@]europe.eu. Available: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK. For domain []@candidate.eu: Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Turkey.

Please use the appropriate language when sending email. Either Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish or Swedish.

----- Original message -----

I agree with Mr. Green regarding European attitude and their lack of conviction toward restraining the Clerical regime in Iran. However, I believe the main reason for this is U.S.'s own inability to formulate a coherent policy toward the regime.
If U.S. is serious about standing up to the Mullahs, they should start actively supporting the people who are sick of this regime. They can let loose the main opposition group (National Council of Resistance of Iran).
So instead of writing letters to old Europe who we all know where they stand, we should ask US to clear their position.
The idiots in State Department who were behind the Iran-Contra affair are still running the Iran desk at State Department today.

Regards

The prisoners at Guantanamo were captured in war, albeit they are unlawful combattants under the Genva Conventions. The people imprisoned, shot and tortured by the Soviet Organs in the Gulag were sent there mostly for no crimes at all, but to cause terror among Soviet citizens and foreign Communists in order to enhance the power of Stalin and his consiglieri. There is no valid resemblance between the two.

The Taliban did not form until years afte the US ceased supplying the Afghan resistants with arms and money. In any case virtully all our support for the Mujahedeen was funneled during the Soviet-Afghan War through Pakistan's ISI, who directed it for their own purposes.

Iraq was a client state of the USSR from 1958 until the fall of the Soviet Union; it was never an American client state. During the Iraq-Iran war the US gave some help to Iraq, primarily because our "friends" among the Arabs asked us to as they were supporting Saddam. It is also worth noting that in taking our Embassy personnel hostage and in violating our Embassy in Teheran, the Iranians committed an act of war against the US which has not yet been settled.

The mullahs want the nukes for the purposes of genocide and imperial conquest, and people like Andreas are bitching about the USA? Do such people really believe they can contiue to live in Cloudcuckooland forever?

Andreas,

Comparing Gitmo and other US military facilities to the Gulags is like comparing apples to oranges. Of course the Gitmo inmates do not get a trial; they are at best prisoners of war. Merely being a prisoner of war is not a crime, does not carry a time-limited sentence, and is not subject to due process or a trial. The fact that the insurgents are violating the laws of war by avoiding state affiliation and by hiding among civilian populations does not place any additional blame on the US, nor does it obligate us to treat them better than those who have not comitted war crimes. The gulag inmates were domestic and often political prisoners.

There is a gray area between torture and corecive interrogation, and that we disagree with you over the line between does not automatically make us evil.

Its my understanding that many of the modern French civil prisons are hellholes by the standards of American prisons, whether civil or military; British domestic surveilance and self-defense restrictions go well beyond what is considered basic American civil rights. Free speech is restricted in Canada and Germany in methods that would be unconstitutional here. Does that make these countries more totalitarian than the US?

@ P.M. Lawrence

"Dutch marines are better than US ones, and so on."

That, Sir, is the most rediculous thing I have read on the Internet in this young year!

Former Officer, 1st Force Recon Battalion
USMC

Andreas, care to give us your plan on how to deal with Iran?

"Andreas, care to give us your plan on how to deal with Iran?"

I think Andreas/Andread's plan is simple: denial, then surrender.

Good luck dealing with the Iranian radioactive cloud as it showers debris over your head someday...

So, if we all convert to Islam (Cleric's response to a reporter who asked how we could have prevented the Bali attack, "convert to Islam", accept that we, despite free markets, free elections and freedom of speech, are the exact same as the totalitarian state that killed 50 MILLION of its own people..we will have peace

Just like the people of Cambodia when they were gently administered by the VERY communist Pol Pot regime and the woman of Afghanistan under the Taliban

The USSR really did call itself and think of itself as communist, btw

Andreas --

When France stops its longstanding and well-documented detaining of domestically-captured terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial, or is expelled from European institutions for doing so, I'll start actually listening to European complaints about U.S. treatment of francs-tireurs subject to summary execution under the long-established laws of war.

This post is ridiculous. Iran knows there is no way in hell we are going after them after what has happenened in Iraq. We showed that when you take our big stick to a beehive, you don't get honey: you get a lot of angry bees.

Reality Check: Iran is getting the bomb. They have lots of oil. There is no military solution to these problems. Soft power, baby, and diplomacy. It's all we got left.

And by the way, Israel is a grown-up country that can take care of itself.

Dear PM (Post Menstrual?) Lawrence,

What a load of cobblers! All of it was complete rubbish. My highlights are:

1) The '... USA being comparatively short-termist' line is meant to be an insult obviously. Well thank Christ they are mate or you and I, and every other Australian would not be here. The 'long termist view' is a convenient way of disguising lack of moral courage on Europe's behalf. Help wasn’t coming to us from ‘long termist’ Europe then, and we will not see it in the future. You and I both know that.

2) Your line - 'and displaced the policing efforts others were applying after their own hard learning curve' is cute but unsupportable. The world, post WW2 recognised Europe was morally and physically bankrupt. A vacuum was created and the US and Soviet Union (ah, remember the Soviet Union) stepped in. Europe wasn’t rudely elbowed out of the way. It fell over with exhaustion. It seems to be still suffering from it.

Western Europe (minus our British cousins of course) is an emasculated, shell. The message to Europe should be “get out of the way, you bunch of plonkers, and let the real defenders of Western civilisation get on with fixing up your (‘long-termist’) mess of the last 500 years.

3) I mentioned your interesting line on the (almost exquisite) skills of European fighting forces to my brother, a serving Australian officer. Little brother has recently spent 12 months serving with European officers and men with the UN in Syria and Israel. He was quite taken aback by the comment ‘practically all European special forces are man for man better than US ones’. Once he stopped pissing himself. He said he was quite confident that Australian army, small as it currently is, would be dining in Berlin on Friday having invaded Normandy on Monday. France would, as tradition has it, would have surrendered by Tuesday mid-morning. He would pick up a snack on his way through. I reassured him you were serious and he reassured me you are a fool. And who can argue!

Please no more drivel Mr/Ms Lawrence. Move to Canada, they are looking for people like you. Oh, and no one ‘remembers Suez’ you dolt.

Of course nobody remembers Suez - outside Europe. That was the point about short termism.

There's no reason to read my description of Europe's position as endorsement, either.

There's no need for me to emigrate to Canada, when I emigrated from the UK to Australia.

There's no need to be dismissive of the comparative performance of the manpower of various countries' elite forces - I was very clear that I was not comparing for their overall effectiveness allowing for numbers and equipment, logistical support and so on. But if you'd rather look at some backing facts, consider the way US Marines refused to go over a Royal Marines assault course on an exchange visit some years ago, and the way on NATO exercises in Germany the SAS often managed to penetrate US HQ areas and leave evidence of it, despite being absolutely assured there was no point in even trying.

Why on earth would you expect there not to be even a silver lining to the cloud of imposed military contraction? This arises from being able to select and train the elite units even more. It does not show as a replacement for numbers, for morale among regular troops, or for equipment and logistics support in overall combat effectiveness.

But why get so indignant and dismissive at the very idea? It's not as though experience with US elite forces qualifies anyone any better to comment on the European ones. There just isn't the basis for a factual comparison.

Anyhow, if people substitute prejudice for genuine descriptions of where most Europeans are coming from, they are bound to come up with piffle like the idea that Europeans are actively in favour of kid glove approaches. It's just that they aren't going to bust a gut when that wouldn't give them anything they want. To the extent the US insists on doing it its way and that overlaps European objectives, well and good - and to the extent the agendas differ, why waste the effort? No European benefits were ever going to flow from Iraqi reconstruction, for instance.

Nate, surgical strikes on Iran don't require occupation of Iran.

Nate --

Yes, we showed what happens when the United States decides to remove a government in Iraq. It goes away, it stays gone, and the U.S. takes historically-trivial numbers of casulaties even if it decides to occupy the place and try to build a stable government.

I mean, grow a little historical perspective here. Iraq is less unstable than the Phillipines in 1902, and the war has cost the U.S. fewer casualties than the Phillipine-American War (aka Phillipine Insurrection) did from 1899-1902. Despite that being a much larger proportion of the U.S. population back 104 years ago, that war hardly crippled the U.S., as can be seen by our ability to intervene in a whole bunch of other countries in the 1900-1920 timeframe.

Bedrock Guy
re: Andreas
There's not much you can do with a guy like Andreas who compares the soviet gulags to US detention camps. He has never read Ginzberg or Solzynitsin (sp); he probably doesn't like to read. Then you have to recall that some people never learn. When the jihadia are frying his balls off he will be screaming at them - "hey I was for you guys, I hate America!" Recall those stories of soviet functionaries in the gulags who, when dragged to their execution (shovels to the head, usually), would cry out, "let me talk to Stalin, just one more time; Stalin will clear this all up!" (those were Stalin's favorite after dinner anecdotes by the way)

To those who asked why Europe would care if Israel got wiped off the map, the answer is that ordinarily, she wouldn't. The fact is most Europeans are incorrigible Jew-haters and would like nothing more than to see Hitler's work finished.

But there is the tiny problem of Israel's large nuclear arsenal -- 100 to 200 weapons, even more, if general estimates are to be believed.

At the very least, Israel's retaliation would involve not only Iran and other Arab capitals, but I would think also Mecca, Medina, and major oil producing regions. If so, Europe would face an immediate economic collapse from which it would never recover, combined with millions of rioting Muslims, who would used the chaos, backed by Iran's nukes, to actually seize the reins of power in several European nations -- France, Belgium, Holland and Sweden come to mind.

And the even worse case scenario is Europe being hit directly by a dying Israel, in revenge for two Holocausts and 2,000 years of persecution.

Either way, it would mean the end of a Western cultural Europe.

I'd like to see the Europeans stop acting as though they care about peace.

>The fact is most Europeans are incorrigible Jew-haters and would like nothing more than to see Hitler's work finished. (anonymous)

Now that, if I may so, is a moronic statement. There's a great deal of anti-Israeli sentiment in Europe, but a fair proportion of that is driven by disapproval of Israeli policies rather than naked anti-Semitism.

I agree with most of the original open letter. I'm not European myself, but British, and I despair of the way we're gradually becoming indistinguishable.

Stephen Green, you are a Machiavellian populist.

Mr. Eugenides:

"Now that, if I may so, is a moronic statement. There's a great deal of anti-Israeli sentiment in Europe, but a fair proportion of that is driven by disapproval of Israeli policies rather than naked anti-Semitism."

That sir, is pure BS. It is the sort of statement one would expect from a European (and yes, Mr. Eugenides, your Brits are part of Europe, whether you like that fact or not -- otherwise why are you in the EU?) who has been exposed to decades of anti-Israeli and indeed anti-Semitic hate spewed out by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, and even supposedly more "reasonable" publications like the Times and the Economist.

Israel's policy is simple -- defend itself against a group of crazed, suicidal, genocidal Islamonazis (your beloved Palestinians) who are so fanatic in their desire to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth that like Nazi Germany, they have built their whole culture around it. And you EUROPEANS denounce, boycott, vilify, demonize and dehumanize six millions Jews, surrounded by 300+ million Arabs, for ANY attempt to defend themselves against these vile Nazi animals.

Hell, Europe doesn't even want Israel to build a wall -- a passive wall, for God's sake.

And we know the reason why. Europe wanted to rid the world of its Jewish problem in 1948, figuring the Arabs (armed largely by your Brits, I might add) would finish off the Jews then, leaving them with basically a Judenrein Old World.

Failing that, Europe has invested great energy in the Palestinians in the hope that they will finish Hitler's work.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Eugenics -- what unifies the French and the German,the Greek and the Turk, thr Russian and the Pole? Ideologically, the only thing that unifies them now, in a post-Christian, post-soviet Communist Europe, is their Jew-hatred, crystallized in their insatiable hatred of Israel. Anti-americanism, you say? Nonsense. After all, who do most Europeans think run America?

The only good Jew to Israel is a dead one. Always was, always will be.

Andreas is a typical leftist tool with nothing of substance to contribute, so maybe everybody is just skipping his comments, (like I should be for my blood pressure)but this quote has to be pointed out:

"If this wasn't such a tragedy, I'd be inclined to point with fingers to the U.S. and laugh about a county so pathetic it promptly forgets about the very values that make up freedom and democracy, just because a few thousand people lost their lives."

Therin lies the difference between you and us Andreas. Just another "few thousand people lost" to you and your ilk. You are correct, for quite a long time now this is what passes for the rational, practical, intelligent, nuanced, European strategy for dealing with evil. Sums it, and you, up nicely.

Thanks for making it clear where your tribe stands. Every time you and your's comment more Americans get a clearer view of the fact that Europe has nothing to offer in solving the world's most pressing problem. Please visit as many sites and post as many of these brilliant comments as you can.

Doesn't anybody see that these open letters are the reason there is such antagonism between Europe and the US? Outlandish statements such as: "Besides, we aren't the ones who committed the first Holocaust – that was your doing," serve nothing but to divide us. If as much effort went into solving actual problems (Iran) instead of bickering, there might still be hope for diplomatic solutions instead of invasions.

Needless insults and the implied superiority of Americans are what ostracize the US from the rest of the world. Face it, as Americans, we need the support of others. Sure, our country is a superpower, but that does not mean that we are capable of winning alone.

It is also important to note that we have a glaring tendency to fault others yet forget about our own mistakes. Has it ever occurred to anyone that America is to blame for installing a dictator in Iran during the Cold War and denying them a nascent democracy? Is anyone aware that this policy LED to the rise of Iranian fundamentalism with which we are dealing with today?

Open letters such as these just encourage Americans and Europeans to bash each other instead of actually trying to solve the world's problems and threats.

--Yanik

"This post is ridiculous. Iran knows there is no way in hell we are going after them after what has happenened in Iraq. We showed that when you take our big stick to a beehive, you don't get honey: you get a lot of angry bees."

Exactly

Actually I'm kind of hoping that Iran (and a select few others) believe that our brand of diplomacy makes promises, rather than threats. knowwhatImeannudgenudgewinkwink

@Soren:

Back to your comment about hoping your kids can emigrate. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you won't fight for your own country, why should we believe you'd fight for your new one?
Trust me, we got quite enough native-born sad sacks and don't need more.
Please keep writing, your perspective is badly needed in this conversation.

Furthermore,

I'm sorry but all these ridiculous posts are enfuriating.

All these self-proclaimed pundits are a perfect example about what my post above is about. Examples:

"Thanks for making it clear where your tribe stands."

"genocidal Islamonazis"

"surrounded by 300+ million Arabs"

This is amazing. First, you are taking Andrea's comments and generalizing them to include an entire group of non-existent people. You cannot take her factual innaccuracies or opinions and assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you must think like he/she does.

Now, as for the "genocidal Islamonazis." I realize you were referring to militant Palestinian Groups, but I must protest at the way this sentence is phrased to include all Arabs. Just because someone believes in Islam does not mean that they want to obliterate the West. You are generalizing the beliefs of a minority onto the majority. This is why peace is so hard to achieve. The general Western population believes that all "300+ Arabs" are out to get them and the Middle East resents being classified as a festering zone of barbarism. Do you think that the majority of Arabs supported the attacks on September 11? Do you really believe that?

The same goes for these massive generalizations that Europe doesn't care if Israel is wiped of the map. This is childlike and dispicable.

If you are going to talk constructively then please avoid these comments that serve no purpose except to ostracize and spread severe misconceptions.

PM,

What facts back up what you are claiming?

"But if you'd rather look at some backing facts, consider the way US Marines refused to go over a Royal Marines assault course on an exchange visit some years ago, and the way on NATO exercises in Germany the SAS often managed to penetrate US HQ areas and leave evidence of it, despite being absolutely assured there was no point in even trying."

I'm sorry, I don't see any "facts" here. I see some claims with no source evidence to back them up, but no facts.

I have no doubt that the British forces of all stripes as well as the Australians, could go toe to toe with their US counterparts. That is why we are such great allies, we are equals. And I think that the other members of NATOs military personel train every bit as hard as the US, but to use two ambigious training exercises as examples of US buffonery, is just silly. By the way, our special forces are: Army/Rangers, Marines/Green Berets, Navy/Seals and combo forces are Delta. I'm sure there are some that we aren't privy to as well. Even if what you say happened, happened, it proves nothing. There are joint military training exercizes all the time, siting "some" that happened "some years ago", is meaningless. However, if it makes you feel better to think of Americans as knuckle dragging morons, then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Now to address your "There's a deep misunderstanding about Europe here, probably due to the USA being comparatively short-termist." Okay, the USA is a product of Europe. Most of us have roots there (although that is changing) and we share the same history. Not only that, we have access to the same information about history as you do, we can read and learn about Rome and Greece as you can. Hell, with plane travel, we can go there ourselves as see the same artifacts that you can. So unless Europeans can channel the dead, I fail to see how you have some special memory that we don't. Considering that we have the longest acting modern democracy, with the oldest written constitution, maybe you youngsters should listen to us more....

Ann

Stephen, great post!

Soren, I'm a fan now...

To everybody who tries to reason with Andreas:

I understand, BUT, don't forget that every dictatorship of every stripe needs and army of true believers. Andreas is one of those people. He would not care and probably be happy, if people like you and I (enemies of the people?) were dragged from bed in the middle of the night to be re-educated. Stalin needed his followers, as did Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Ortega and the like.

By the way, our support of anti Ortega forces is one of the great successes of the cold war. Nicaragua is now a free democracy (instead of a communist dictatorship) that rejects Ortega every time he runs for office, we now have a free trade agreement with them and I suspect their economy will benefit greatly in the near future. I'm not happy that we sold some out dated technology to Iran, but I think that in the context of the times, it probably seemed like a means to an end.

Ann

You're letter is misguided. "For all the friction of our different means, you and I still desire the same ends."

Oh no they don't. Europe, the Continent that took State rivalry to suicideal levels, would rather embrace oblivion than listen to Uncle Sam. This letter, despite its sharp closing, is in the fine tradition of naive Wilsonian foreign policy. Save your breath. Europeans are nothing like you. Don't try to understand them, or anyone else in the world, for that matter. Look to your own interests and security.

armchair pessimest:

How do you think we all got here? Our parents, grandparents, etc., left their countries of origin in disgust to find a better life. Why would you criticize anyone else for doing the same thing?

Ann

This is A Good Letter and interesting Comments. The adults in Australia and America and some others in Denmark, Spain and Britain are really sick and tired of listening to the fractious, undisciplined and "outright evil" children in France and Germany. Sadistic, destructive impulses must be eliminated for society's survival. The Wahhabi and Deobandi strains of Islam are the worst forms of evil ever devised by man, even worse than the Nazis, or Soviet or Cambodian Communists.

"Do you think that the majority of Arabs supported the attacks on September 11? Do you really believe that?"

Absolutely. The Arab world is driven by a paranoid, Jewhating psychosis. I would also safely venture that the vast majority of Muslims (not just Arabs, but Muslims):

Believe that Holocaust is a myth.

Believe that a Jewish cabal runs the United States.

That 9-11 was a Jewish plot and 4,000 Jews stayed home from the WTC that day. Hell, a lot of Europeans believe all of the above. What do you then expect from a Muslim world that heartily embraced Hitler, allowed Nazi war criminals into their midst, and even had those Nazis run their secret police and plan for the eradication of Israel?

You whole post is just an example of naivete.

Well, get this through your head:

Yes, Iran will nuke Israel.

No, Iran does not give a damn how many people die in Israel's retaliation.

Muslims the world over will celebrate in rapturous joy at the annihilation of us Jews.

Europeans will celebrate it too, some rapturously, most smugly and quietly, about how us evil Jooooos got what was coming to us.

What they seem to forget is that this time, Jews will not go quietly, and their little worlds will be destroyed forever as a result.

We'd like you guys to get a little more active in the world, and you'd like us to reign it in a little.

thank u mean "rein" there feller.

Anne,

And sometimes we left our countries of origin in disgust.

As someone who used to be European -- Mr. Soresby is correct. They would rather "win" their competition with the US than live. We can count on them for nothing.

As for the idea that Europe is some sophisticated "long view" strategic giant, I laughed so hard I almost swallowed my tongue.

Eighty year olds are also more "sophisticated" and take the longer view than twenty year olds. This has to do with the fact that they won't be around long enough to reap any serious consequences of doing nothing. Same with Europe.

And Ann, my relatives in Europe are routinely surprised that I have access to books on history here, much less that the range of books is far, far wider (makes perfect sense, as it caters to a larger population, where even a minor interest group can buy enough books to make it proffitable, but European relatives have problems understanding economics.) I told my brother about the History Book Club with its vast array of specialized books available only to professors and academicians throughout most of Europe and I think his head was close to exploding.

We are all cowboys, see. And get all our news from tv. (Which these blinkered products of a statist continent refuse to believe is NOT government controlled. [because: "What great power would allow its press to do whatever?"])

They are the past. If we save anything of them it will be no more than a memory and a ghost.

P.