Saturday, January 21, 2006
Chirac's doctrine, Iran's confession, and the meaning of it all
President Jacques Chirac has dropped a political bombshell by threatening to retaliate with nuclear strikes against any state found to be responsible for a large-scale terrorist attack on France.
In the biggest shift in French nuclear doctrine for 40 years, M. Chirac revealed that the force de frappe - the French nuclear deterrent - had already been reconfigured to allow it to destroy the "power centres" of any state which sponsored a terrorist assault.
Chirac did not mention any particular state that he thought might sponsor a terrorist attack, and he did not seem to discuss terrorist attacks that are not sponsored by a state.
Today, Iran -- which seems to have ruined a pair of underwear on realizing that somebody might blame it for sponsoring terrorism -- became the only country to denounce Chirac's speech:
Iran on Saturday termed as 'unacceptable' remarks made by French President Jacques Chirac on France's right to use nuclear weapons against countries that carried out a terrorist attack against it.
Er, if Iran isn't a state sponsor of terrorism, why should it care? You don't see Iceland, Ireland, Israel or Iraq denouncing Chirac, and at least two of those countries have plenty of motive to yell back at France. Iran's protest is like the leader of the Crips complaining about "three strikes" sentencing rules. If this isn't a confession, it is at least a recognition that somebody might confuse Iran for a state sponsor of terrorism.
And then there's this:
'The French president has increased ambiguities and fears by the world public opinion towards all world states possessing nuclear weapons,' foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi was quoted as saying by news agency ISNA.
Well, then, Iran wouldn't want to be lumped in with all those nasty and scary countries that possess nuclear weapons, would it?
Here's the best part:
Assefi added that human beings' logic, religious beliefs and humanitarian values could in no way accept production and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Silly Jacques, and silly us. How could we possibly think that Islam could permit the production and use of weapons of mass destruction?
Commentary
The press is describing Chirac's speech in domestic political terms, which I think is probably too shallow. Sure, Jacques Chirac is as perfidious as Western politicians come these days, but the leaders of nuclear powers simply have not screwed around with doctrine to notch a few points in the public opinion polls. I would be shocked if even Chirac did this, and believe that the typical reporter reaches for the political angle because it is easier to understand than the geopolitical considerations.
Apart from suckering Iran into its risible protest, what does it all mean?
First, Chirac did not limit France's nuclear retaliation to terrorist attacks by atomic weapons. Theoretically, any mass casualty attack, such as those on September 11, would trigger the doctrine. Having declared the doctrine, if there is a mass-casualty attack that can be tied to a state the president of France will be hard-pressed not to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Second, it is interesting that Chirac does not seem to have included terrorist attacks that are not "state sponsored" in his doctrinal shift. If al Qaeda or one of its ideological affiliates detonates a bomb in Marseilles, Chirac is as out of moves as anybody unless he can demonstrate some link between al Qaeda and some state.
Third, he has certainly created the conditions for al Qaeda to frame one of the "apostate regimes" that it considers its primary enemy. Ordinarily, al Qaeda loudly takes credit for its victories. If it thought it could sucker the French into nuking Tehran, though, it might try to kill a few thousand of Chirac's constituents and leave behind lots of evidence linking the attack to Iran. If I were a raving lunatic locked up in a cave trying to "vex and exhaust" the "apostate" regimes of the Muslim and thought I could get a righteous war going between the West and half of Islam by killing a few thousand French, I'd give it some serious thought.
Fourth, Chirac was, all kidding aside, threatening Iran. In this regard, he was recognizing both that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism -- almost certainly the leading supporter of terrorists in the world now that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are out of the way and Libya has come in from the cold -- and that Iran's most likely method of delivering such a weapon against a European country would be via infiltration, rather than on a ballistic missile or bomber. (For a comprehensive and fascinating discussion of "suitcase nukes", read yesterday's post at The Belmont Club.) Chirac was, in effect, telling the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons or their terrorist network, but not both. This is in some ways like allowing a country to have missiles or warheads, but not both.
Fifth, it strikes me as highly unlikely that Chirac made this speech without Bush and Blair knowing about it and approving of it in advance (and it is probable that China and Russia knew about it in advance, too -- see below). Not only have France, Britain and the United States been in close communication over the confrontation with Iran, but I was not able to find so much as a quibble from the United States, which would have said something if it thought that France's shift in doctrine were ultimately contrary to American interests (which, in turn, suggests that we are not too worried about my "frame up" scenario).
Sixth, it is almost always easier for the French to declare something like this than it is for the United States or even the United Kingdom. Not being part of the Anglosphere (for which both we and they are grateful, no doubt), France simply does not draw the same fire from other big powers. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians, for example, have criticized Chirac. Since both countries have their own problems with Islamist terror, they no doubt agree with Chirac deep down, but they might have felt obligated to speak up if Bush had said what Chirac did say. There is no propaganda value in denouncing France.
Those are my first thoughts. Comments?
14 Comments:
By 
Christine, at
Sat Jan 21, 03:59:00 PM:
Many have mentioned the bad timing and possible negative ramifications of his statement. My initial reaction was different. Taking into consideration that out of all of the countries that are "considered" opposed to Iran, France is the only one that has taken the most flak for being "weak". In my opinion, France was the very last country I would have expected to stand up and make this type of statement. Now, whether or not this was the reason this statement was made or not is of course a different story. Just my opinion.
By Bruce786, at
Sat Jan 21, 04:13:00 PM:
Have you asked the liberated women and children in IRAQ and Afghanistan
some of whom have been blown straight to the next kingdom how they view there situation i suppose its ok its only collateral damage.
How would you like sanctions on USA that kills millions of children then someone comes to liberate you from your despotic regime kills 100's thousands of people and says we dont do nation building or body counts.
The way of Christ does not need Nuclear Weapons to destroy its enemies. Reason and logic are the ultimate weapons and no amount of WMD’s possessed by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA can touch it. If you think that having nuclear weapons will save you then you must belong to the camp of the anti-christ, just search your soul for the answer.
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to islam/chritianity/judaism.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void.
I have shown the passage of Genesis 21 to my two elder children of good reading ages now and without influencing them asked them what mental picture they got about the age of Ishmael in that passage and they thought he was about 5 years old. I have also tried the same thing with my work colleagues some of whom are qualified with PhD’s and have the ENGLISH language as their mother tongue and they also said they thought Ishmael was 5 years or younger because some of them stated by themselves that there was no verbal interaction between mother and child. i.e. If Ishmael is not of talking age then he must be less than a year old.
GENESIS:21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the child.” And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.
For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:
http://www.al-sunnah.com/muhammad_in_the_bible.htm (MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm (Quran and Science)
http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.barnabas.net/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
http://www.islamicity.com/
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
120. "Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!"
121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
122. For they were two of our believing Servants.
ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?????
Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
Amazing so Hagar in Genesis 21:14 – 21 was carrying a 17 year old retard on her one shoulder for maybe 10 – 100 miles (Mrs. Swarzniggar) who later grew up to become an archer, married into an Arab tribe and learned Arabic and went onto have several children. One of the descendants of this retard with his genetic defects passed on his bad DNA to Muhammad the illiterate whose religion is now violently spreading by the sword and soon to overtake the whole planet.
How could this happen like you I am also confused.
The oil found in recent history belongs to the west, its unfortunate it is under lands inhabited by Muslims and not only Arabs. Having oil and economic success then to die and go to hell is not my idea of a great nation.
By the way SCREW BIN LADEN, AL-QAEDA, SADDAM HUSSAIN and who is this Zackarwee all trained by that humanitarian organization called the CIA.
A brief lesson on Islam.
It is the oldest faith on the planet it starts of with Adam and Eve, and continuous through revelations given to Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus (many others too numerous to mention) until its completion under the messenger ship of Muhammad (pbuta). Islam is not an exclusively an Arab faith as there is no scriptural evidence that Muhammad (pbuh) said that he is the founder of Islam. One cannot quote the Quran as it is not the work of Muhammad as he could not read or write in any language including Arabic. Just as Jesus has himself not ever said that he is the founder of Christianity or Moses has not stated that he is the founder of Judaism.
ISIAH 29 verse 12 "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned".
Below are verses from the Quran, where GOD/SATAN himself says that the scriptures were changed by the scribes.
Quran Chapter 2 verse 75
75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.
Quran Chapter 2 verse 79
79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Quran Chapter 4 verse 46
46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
I suppose SATAN said the following about the Israel.
Quran Chapter 2 verse 40 - 83
40. O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.
41. And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.
42. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).
43. And be steadfast in prayer; practise regular charity; and bow down your heads with those who bow down (in worship).
44. Do ye enjoin right conduct on the people, and forget (To practise it) yourselves, and yet ye study the Scripture? Will ye not understand?
45. Nay, seek ((Allah)'s) help with patient perseverance and prayer: It is indeed hard, except to those who bring a lowly spirit,-
46. Who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord, and that they are to return to Him.
47. Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message).
48. Then guard yourselves against a day when one soul shall not avail another nor shall intercession be accepted for her, nor shall compensation be taken from her, nor shall anyone be helped (from outside).
49. And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.
50. And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people within your very sight.
51. And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.
52. Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.
53. And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.
54. And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft- Returning, Most Merciful.
55. And remember ye said: "O Moses! We shall never believe in thee until we see Allah manifestly," but ye were dazed with thunder and lighting even as ye looked on.
56. Then We raised you up after your death: Ye had the chance to be grateful.
57. And We gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails, saying: "Eat of the good things We have provided for you:" (But they rebelled); to us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls.
58. And remember We said: "Enter this town, and eat of the plenty therein as ye wish; but enter the gate with humility, in posture and in words, and We shall forgive you your faults and increase (the portion of) those who do good."
59. But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly.
60. And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.
61. And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
63. And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you (The towering height) of Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah."
64. But ye turned back thereafter: Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah to you, ye had surely been among the lost.
65. And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
66. So We made it an example to their own time and to their posterity, and a lesson to those who fear Allah.
67. And remember Moses said to his people: "(Allah) commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "(Allah) save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"
68. They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what (heifer) it is!" He said; "He says: The heifer should be neither too old nor too young, but of middling age. Now do what ye are commanded!"
69. They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us Her colour." He said: "He says: A fawn-coloured heifer, pure and rich in tone, the admiration of beholders!"
70. They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills."
71. He said: "He says: A heifer not trained to till the soil or water the fields; sound and without blemish." They said: "Now hast thou brought the truth." Then they offered her in sacrifice, but not with good-will.
72. Remember ye slew a man and fell into a dispute among yourselves as to the crime: But Allah was to bring forth what ye did hide.
73. So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand.
74. Thenceforth were your hearts hardened: They became like a rock and even worse in hardness. For among rocks there are some from which rivers gush forth; others there are which when split asunder send forth water; and others which sink for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.
75. Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?- Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.
76. Behold! when they meet the men of Faith, they say: "We believe": But when they meet each other in private, they say: "Shall you tell them what Allah hath revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord?"- Do ye not understand (their aim)?
77. Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?
78. And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
80. And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do not know?"
81. Nay, those who seek gain in evil, and are girt round by their sins,- they are companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (For ever).
82. But those who have faith and work righteousness, they are companions of the Garden: Therein shall they abide (For ever).
83. And remember We took a covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah. treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now).
By sirius_sir, at
Sat Jan 21, 05:48:00 PM:
Bruce, huh?
Anyway, back on topic... I can't help but think Chirac's warning, coming as it does seemingly out of the blue, possibly comes in response to some indication of just such an attack.
I can't help but also think that the Iranians doth protest a wee bit too much.
By Van Helsing, at
Sat Jan 21, 07:10:00 PM:
Nuclear weapons are the only way France could effectively retaliate. I doubt their military is up to invading Iran. But the proof that Iran was behind the attack would have to be incontrovertible to justify nukes.
By 
, at
Sat Jan 21, 07:26:00 PM:
Geezzzz Bruce. Have ya tried Decaf?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that good ol' Jackie Boy had his cage rattled by those 'inconvenient' riots across France over the holidays. I'm also sure he and his constituents did not savor the thought of some version of "Paristan" and the need to change Le Champs Elysees to the "Ayatollah Highway". Add to that sirius_sir's comment about a possible foiled plot (not announced obviously) and you get the makings of a nice little "I'll scratch your back, if..." between France and the US, UK, et.al.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 08:26:00 PM:
Nuclear retaliation as a response to a major terrorist attack is a given for most countries possessing nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, China , Israel, etc. do not need to make such a statement.
Chirac made this statement because there seems to be some doubt about French willingness to defend itself.
IMHO, it was a necessary clarification.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 08:42:00 PM:
If you want to threaten some group with retaliation you must threaten to hurt, take or destroy something they value. Fundamental Islamic terrorists don't value much in the modern world over their fanatic, religiously-driven ambition of world domination. Human lives of even their own people doesn't seem to carry much weight. I can name one target that might catch their attention though, and that would be Mecca.
I would tell these religious nuts that if a nuclear strike to the western world, including Israel, occurs which can be unquestionably traced to Muslims of any stripe then we, the USA and our allies, will melt the the Kaaba that houses the Black Stone in Mecca as part of the process of turning the Holy City into radioactive glass.
No excuses, no waivering just immediate retaliation on a target of limitless worth to Islam but of little value to the rest of the world. Maybe even Islamic savages could take such a threat to heart.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 09:11:00 PM:
For a devout Muslim, admiting that is possible to vaporize their Rock would be the same as denying the existence of Allah. Therefore, no real Muslim would give this threat any credibility. In their minds, Allah would personally intervene in the matter.
You can kill God, but you can't threaten to do it.
I have no doubt that if a nuclear weapon detonated in Israel, the Israelis would include all of the Islamic holy sites in their target list. They might even destroy the Temple Mount.
Whether or not any other nuclear power might do the same thing is acadamic. If Iran used five nuclear weapons, I don't know what targets would be assigned to bombs two through five, but you can be sure that bomb one will go off in Tel Aviv.
The use of nuclear weapons by Iran will positively result in the destruction of all Islamic holy sites, but we can never credibly threaten to do such a thing.
I wonder what the reaction of about one billion Muslims will be when they realize that Allah never existed.
Not good I imagine.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 09:15:00 PM:
Rays: "Nuclear retaliation as a response to a major terrorist attack is a given for most countries possessing nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, China , Israel, etc. do not need to make such a statement."
I'm not sure that's true. The US, after all, considered and rejected a nuclear response to 9/11.
After reading much about Iran this week, I've tentatively come to the view that a nuclear Iran can probably be deterred. But that will require its adversaries to actually engage in **deterrence**.
In the cold war, the US drew clear public red lines, such as a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or the Persian Gulf. If the Soviets crossed the line, we were precommitted to a nuclear response. If the US/UK/France/Russia coalition is serious about containing Iran, then I'd look for more of those countries to make this kind of statement.
At any rate, we have to be sufficiently clear about the matter to leave no doubt in Tehran how we'll respond. And similarly, to leave no doubt among regional allies how the US will respond if Iranian nukes go off in Riyadh, Tel Aviv or Baghdad.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 10:03:00 PM:
"I'm not sure that's true. The US, after all, considered and rejected a nuclear response to 9/11."
By "a major terrorist attack", I meant an attack severe enough to warrant a nuclear retaliation such as a nuclear detonation or a smallpox attack. Sorry for not being clear.
I believe that it is possible to deter Iran from attacking the US or EU if they were the only targets.
But Islam could never be deterred from attacking Israel. The existence of Israel on their holy land is a denial of the primacy of Islam. To tolerate the Israeli control of the Temple Mount is to deny Allah.
Devout Islamists will sacrifice everything in order to destroy Israel.
Iran knows that to attack Israel guarantees a nuclear retaliation from Israel.
There would be no reason to hold back from attacking everybody else.
By Georgfelis, at
Sun Jan 22, 01:50:00 AM:
Well, there is another reason Jock might have decided to try to Talk the Big Talk. So far in the War, the U.S. has been hit. Spain has been hit. And England has been hit. And France…has had a bunch of teens burn cars in the streets. Of all the nations vulnerable to terrorists, I would place France fairly high on the list. They’re pompous, have lots of teenage nuts in the country already, and low security. Any attack will have a dramatic result (the French can be so stuck up that nobody likes them, even the French). Just because they are not in our corner on The War, doesn’t mean the Islamic Terrorists consider them an ally, just another soft and corrupt enemy.
Yes, it sounds cynical, but Jock is in a tight spot. Lots of Islamic French voters inside the country, lots of French commercial contracts outside the country, and having made so many Anti-War statements makes it so if there is a French attack, he’s going to be looking for a new job really quickly. I don’t sympathize with him at all, he worked himself into the Axis of Weasels by himself. Now he has to delay the inevitable, hopefully until he has been out of office for a few months, and can blame it on his successor (like somebody else we all know and love).
By , at
Sun Jan 22, 05:28:00 AM:
You read to much into this.
Look at Chirac's history. He is a manipulative politician and, by a number of acounts, a criminal.
Chirac's comments were for internal consumption more than anything. He needs the job to stay out of court. He needs to sound tough to have any chance of staying in the job.
By Meme chose, at
Sun Jan 22, 09:11:00 AM:
Before we get too excited about this we should remember that these are WORDS. Words of all shapes and sizes, and not much else, are the Europeans' speciality these days.
European countries all have a lot of laws on the books, for example, denying entry to illegal immigrants and providing for their deportation, believe it or not. In actual fact their borders are better described as totally open (i.e. undefended). They keep saying they are going to fix this, but these are once again just words.
The practical impacts of this are two:
(1) Chirac has overtly conceded that Bush's policy is correct (Bush's policy in my view having been from 9/12 that after a mass casualty attack one or more regimes associated with terror must be utterly destroyed 'pour encourager les autres').
(2) Perhaps the most lasting effect is that, as you mention, this puts a gigantic premium on the ability to disguise the source of future attacks. Plenty of room for mischief there.
By Dymphna, at
Mon Jan 23, 10:07:00 PM:
Tigerhawk--
Have you seen the Weekly Standard's essay on how much the Algerian terrorists want France. Rather disturbing.
Here's my link, Weekly Standard article is clipped there:
Is France a WMD?
One of my commenters suggested that Europe will do things the old Europe way: wait till the very last moment and then start killing everyone. He certainly has history on his side.
