Mavi Marmara Raid

[Rex Brynen]

While I accept that the state of US-Israeli relations plays into the extent to which the US constrains a possible Israeli strike against Iran, there are many other reasons which potentially limit this option on the Israeli side:

1) What does Israel think it knows about the Iranian nuclear program? What might it have missed, and how important are those elements? The issue of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is particularly important here.

2) How effective might a strike be against known targets? What would be the anticipated consequences of US non-cooperation (and hence potential unfriendly overflight of US allies--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey)?

3) What effects would a strike have on Iranian behaviour: would it deter them from weapons development, or lead them to devote much more resources to it (so as to gain the ability to deter future strikes)?

4) What would be the other immediate and longer term consequences of a strike?

This isn't to say that the Israelis won't strike. It is to say, however, that IMHO these issues far outweigh anything that arises specifically from the israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Vahid]

While I accept that the state of US-Israeli relations plays into the extent to which the US constrains a possible Israeli strike against Iran, there are many other reasons which potentially limit this option on the Israeli side:

1) What does Israel think it knows about the Iranian nuclear program? What might it have missed, and how important are those elements? The issue of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is particularly important here.

2) How effective might a strike be against known targets? What would be the anticipated consequences of US non-cooperation (and hence potential unfriendly overflight of US allies--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey)?

3) What effects would a strike have on Iranian behaviour: would it deter them from weapons development, or lead them to devote much more resources to it (so as to gain the ability to deter future strikes)?

4) What would be the other immediate and longer term consequences of a strike?

This isn't to say that the Israelis won't strike. It is to say, however, that IMHO these issues far outweigh anything that arises specifically from the israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Interesting set of questions. In my humble opinion, it is quite unequivocal that the ongoing rapprochement between Iran and Turkey (the two neighbours whose relations used to be characterised as a relationship of ''tolerance'', will undoubtedly gain momentum. What I have found to be very noteworthy (as a side note) is that the proponents of a religious rule in both polities have also used this attack to silence the seculars (their argument being that the seculars are not vocal enough to condemn the outrage of Mavi Marmara. Hence, from a socio-political perspective, while the exponents of militant Islam have been quick to exploit the incident, it can have retrograde effects as far as democratisation in the Middle East is concerned.

Furthermore, the enormity of ythe incident, as far as I have been able to follow from media outlets, can also dethrone the issue of Iran's nuclear problem at the UN. In fact, I am not sure to what extent this news is reliable, but the following news item (from the Israeli media) hints at such a likelihood:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...898304,00.html

The portentious question is if ever the motion regains importance, to what extent its adoption will prove less controversial.

Finally, I find the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran to be far-fetched. With Turkey being in ruled by the AKP (which has considerably incapacitated the army apparatus, the guarants of secularism), Turkey's reaction would be, from my point of view, hard to digest for Israel in a Middle East that is growing increasingly hostile to its skulduggery in the region

[Sergeant T]

in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose

The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.

Without entering into the right/wrong/stupid/justified tug-of-war about the blockade, its worth noting that Israel began it for a reason. (Love Rex's Winnie-the-Pooh reference to describe it.) At the time it seemed worth the effort as an avenue to degrade the political control of a universally acknowledged terrorist organization. That fact is utterly lost in the narrative being placed before the world WRT to this incident. I don't know how you win in a 4G environment when your opponent's population, and for that matter the entire region, is predisposed to believe the worst about you.

Final thought. Does it sound too conspiracy theorist to point out that this happened right before Netanyahu was supposed to meet with the president? I'm not going Cynthia McKinney here, just wondering if the timing has any relation.

[slapout9]

The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.

That is really the point. It's not about no force but less force. The whole operation could have been handled better as a law Enforcement operation carried out by Law Enforcement agencies (coast guard/border patrol as USA examples)than military forces. Plus Cops carry TASERS....works pretty good against people with clubs, at least a lot better than paint ball guns!!!