Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Clever Fellow?

Nuclear power is an interesting negotiating trick for Iran; possessing such a disastrous destructive ability would place Iran in a much more powerful position because, though still not anywhere near equal to the United States in military capabilities, they would be able to eliminate Israel, an unpopular American ally, before any sufficient defense could be organized. Since such an outcome would be impermissible, the US would have to be much more sensitive to Iran’s demands and doing so would legitimize their claim to equal international representation. The only problem with this plan is that the Iranian president may be pushing his agenda too hard; not content to play with the notion of nuclear power, he actually seems intent on getting it. But, because compromising Israel’s ability to protect itself cannot be allowed, he may actually force a conflict with the western powers. If he just wants to increase his country’s international influence then pretending to develop nuclear abilities as long as possible and appearing ready to use them against Israel is a brilliant move —as long as it’s not carried too far. However, if he honestly wants to obliterate Israel —like he keeps saying– then we may be on the brink of another bloody conflict.
But, it’s extremely hard to tell if this is his authentic desire. It seems like a less public weapons program would be more effective since Israel has already proven it’s willingness to bomb any facility it believes might be involved in the development of nuclear weapons, and no matter the cost surely the Americans would be ready to send in troops if it were the only way to prevent nuclear war. I have to assume that the Iranian president is a very smart guy and probably realizes this… but on the other hand, Iran has also been funding groups like Hezbollah who are very effective at disrupting normal life in Israel and don’t seem to give Iran any substantial augmentation in their political influence. While Hezbollah’s political power has skyrocketed and this has indirectly helped Iran (by giving the western powers more things to worry about), I don’t believe anyone could have confidently predicted this, so the Iranian contributions seem like pure malice (although, to introduce another conspiracy theory, Iran could have helped these groups to show just how seriously they were committed to Israel’s elimination…).
Having international negotiating power legitimized by military might seems kind’ve unjust but it’s the only way it’s ever been done and likely to get done, so denying Iranians equality with the west by refusing to allow them to develop nuclear arms seems unfair (does anyone really think they just want nuclear energy?). However, it would be just as unjust if Iran’s power came at the expense of Israeli citizens and unfortunately, I haven’t yet found a good way to reconcile these two goals.

Is it Time For a Ceasefire?

On the one side, Israel has killed many more civilians than Hezbollah could ever dream of since the war began (about 7 to 1 now (only counting since Israel began its offensive and not including deaths by suicide bombers and pre-war rocket activity)). Not on purpose of course and probably not from carelessness either; the Israeli weapons and military operations are much more comprehensive… so more things get blown up. While they are killing a lot of civilians I still find it hard to get really upset with Israel because I have no sympathy for Hezbollah or any of its supporters. How could you possibly hope to eliminate a terrorist group without shooting a few people?
If the complaint is that Israel’s reaction is too extreme, then imagine some of the alternatives. If Mexico started shooting random rockets into the US they’d be a giant crater by the end of the week. The last time the US suffered one really bad terrorist attack they responded by overthrowing two countries, but Israel launches some minor ground offensives to root out some Hezbollah militants and everyone is busy scolding them for endangering a fragile democracy (so fragile that they have no control over the southern part of the country). You can’t expect Israel to sit on its hands and permit terrorists to lob rockets into its cities, so don’t get excited when they decide to shoot back.
But without getting straight-out racist about it, you can’t blame the Lebanese people for Hezbollah. People seem to convince themselves that the civilian casualties are tolerable by disassociating themselves from the Lebanese. But unless there is something fundamentally different about them, the same kind of terror group could have developed anywhere. While cultural and historical influences prevented it from occurring here, nothing but a birth lottery made it happen to them and not us. Because people can be blamed for the choices they make but not their environmental circumstances, blaming the Lebanese for Hezbollah isn’t fair. A civilian death is not less tragic because they live in a country half ruled by terrorists. Killing the militants is allowed, but each time a Lebanese civilian is killed it’s just as tragic as when an Israeli or American dies. There is a deeply rooted injustice inherent in even their accidental deaths.
A ceasefire is essentially designed to protect the Lebanese. Although it would stop Hezbollah from blowing up any more Israelis right now, in the long run it would probably be safer for Israel to shoot at Lebanon until they run out of militant radicals to kill (or decimate their population, whichever comes first). In a sense any cessation of hostilities trades Israeli lives for Lebanese; allowing some terrorists to survive means they will be back later to plan new attacks.
So, allowing Israel to keep shooting and killing civilians isn’t fair because the Lebanese people should not suffer as a whole for the crimes of a few, but stopping Israel means that the terrorists will return to kill them later. Getting back to the original question, frankly it’s impossible for me to tell if we’ve reached the point at which it’s better to stop the fighting or if doing so would only cause greater tragedy down the road. Not only am I not nearly well enough informed about what’s going on, but I’m not sure how to begin to calculate the balance between the lives lost on both sides. It’s really not fair to do a one to one math equation to see which event keeps the most people alive, I mean we wouldn’t want to say that maybe it would have been better to not have fought the Nazis since perhaps more people might be alive if we had surrendered and let them kill all the Jews; there’s something important about achieving justice too. The only conviction I feel certain about is that there is no side in this debate which is completely justified in its stance or actions.

Proposals for the UN

Thinking about the Middle East and what kind of reaction might be appropriate and effective to prevent civilian casualties and yet keep Israel safe led me to propose a couple. At least initially it seemed appropriate to deny UN status to any country which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. It seems just since these countries are inherently doing the same to Israel since a country which is “non-existent” cannot participate (which is also why Hezbollah has no chance to achieve UN representation). However, this might create a problem since non-membership in the UN also allows non-conformity with its sanctions. If a country does not agree to the rules or at least have an equal part in creating them then it may validly complain that they do not apply. (Of course in cases like Lebanon, this seems to be pretty much the case regardless; but it legitimizes their non-cooperation). Also, UN forces would be perceived less as an international presence and more as foreigners imposing on Muslim sovereignty. So, I thought maybe a better idea would be to reject their right to vote. This paralyzes only a small part of their international power, but keeping them inside the UN is necessary to prevent justifying their non-conformity with international consensus.
The UN also needs to increase its reprimand of countries, governments and organizations which fund or supply terrorist groups. Iran and Syria shouldn’t be allowed to escape responsibility for Hezbollah while Lebanon’s infrastructure gets pounded just because Hezbollah doesn’t live there. So how do you decide when a country is responsible for terror activity? (I.e. what about Lebanon where there seems to be two political and military presences?) I suppose it depends exclusively on the government’s level of cooperation. Each country has to be given a mandate such that they are responsible for hostilities originating within their borders (so they cannot plead ignorance) and their cooperation with these groups (so they cannot escape the consequences). But for this to be a fair system then just as Palestine should be responsible for its suicide bombers, Canada should be held responsible for terrorists who use the country as a launch pad. This seems like the only way to make it fair an equal.