Zarabi vs. Pipes

The Jerusalem Post ^ | June 22, 2006 | Reza Zarabi

[bensam]

Recently, neo-conservative analyst Daniel Pipes wrote an article ("Can the IAF take out Iran's nukes?", June 13) that, in essence, advocates for the Jewish state to carry out pre-emptive military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Although Pipes has many justifications for his reasoning, this time he specifically alludes to the recently published article in International Security entitled “Osirak Redux” by security scholars Whitney Raas and Austin Long. Now Pipes makes it clear that Raas and Long do not take into account the diplomatic, strategic, and political fallout of such an action, but only focus on the question of “Can it be done”? To Pipes, the answer is a resounding “yes”, however, for those who too often take the Middle Eastern analysis of western academics as gospel, I would urge you to carefully read Raas and Long before forming any definitive conclusions. In rehashing “Osirak Redux”, Pipes clearly cherry picks certain points that the article makes that support his assertion that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities is the only method of keeping the Islamic Republic from attaining nuclear weapons. Yet he also manages to maneuver around critical points that the authors make that undermine the neo-conservative mantra that Pipes so eagerly defends.

[bensam]

Jerusalem Post shootout

[true_blue_texican]

do not take into account the diplomatic, strategic, and political fallout of such an action

How can an Israeli victory cause any WORSE fallout than what they already receive on a daily basis?

[Rummyfan]

BFLR.

[Otaku6]

Honestly I think that the Isrealis could use a nuke and still get the same outrage because they would have been told they used a nuke but it was one of those sneaky invisible nukes.

Why don’t they just drop those watermelons laced with AIDS I heard about in Riyahd?

[Ancesthntr]

Why don’t they just drop those watermelons laced with AIDS I heard about in Riyahd?

Personally, I'd like to see a 2nd attack occur simultaneously with the one on the Iranian nuke facilities: one where hundreds of pigs (dead - why terrorize them?) would be dropped from 10,000 feet onto the big black rock on Mecca. The only problem is how you attach fins and a guidance system to a pig.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

Recently, neo-conservative analyst Daniel Pipes wrote an article ("Can the IAF take out Iran's nukes?", June 13) that, in essence, advocates for the Jewish state to carry out pre-emptive military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

So many in the US and the rest of the world would love to see this - government heads throughout the Arab nations would be cheering behind the scenes, along with the heads of Europe and the US. All while publicly berating and condemning the Israelis for doing it, of course.

But it doesn't look like Israel is going to be doing the world's work for it this time. A nuclear-armed Iran will have to be dealt with by the Arabs, the EU, and the US.

[Otaku6]

Good Idea I like it
Will the pigs have laser guidance systems on their heads?

Still I remember hearing after 9/11 that some pig farmers in Iowa were willing to give up the pig manure and load it into one of those massive russian bombers (Bison Right) and drop it on their heads.

Then I figured why bother why not just announce on Saudi TV that when King Abdullah visited the White House they used manure to help the lawn grow.