Foreign Meddlin'

[Camikaze]

From the BBC:

Biden strikes tough note on Iran
US Vice-President Joe Biden has hinted the administration will not restrain Israel if it decides on military action to remove any Iranian nuclear threat.
Mr Biden told ABC television the US could not "dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do".
Mr Biden also said President Obama's offer of dialogue with Iran remained on the table.
A senior Iranian official said his country would respond decisively to any attack by Israel on its facilities.
Mr Obama has given Iran until the end of the year to talk about its nuclear programme, which Iran insists is for energy purposes only.
Western countries are concerned Tehran is working to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated Israel would take matters into its own hands if Iran did not show a willingness to negotiate.

Appearing on ABC's current affairs programme This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Mr Biden whether the Israeli position was the right approach.
The vice-president replied: "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation - what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
He added that this was the case, "whether we agree or not" with the Israeli view.
Asked whether the US would stand in the way if the Israelis decided to launch a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, Mr Biden said Israel, like the US, had a right to "determine what is in its interests".
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said Mr Biden was not signalling any change of approach on Iran or Israel.
"The vice-president refused to engage [in] hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed," he was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy commission, responded to Mr Biden's remarks while on a visit to Tokyo.
Iran would respond "in a very full-scale and very decisive way" to an Israeli attack, he said.
"I think that America and Israel are fully aware what kind of result such a wrong judgement will entail," he said in remarks quoted by AFP news agency.
"Israel showed its military power sufficiently in the 22-day war [in Gaza]. That kind of erroneous judgement poses a threat to the entire Middle Eastern region and the world."

Firstly, at the hypocrisy.

Secondly, to what extent should nations be allowed to meddle in the affairs of other nations? In this situation, we see a third party declaring that they have no right to involvement in the affairs of the other two parties. Should this be a limit to the extent to which nations can interfere? Should there be any limits to what nations can interfere with? Should there only be a select few nations allowed to interfere internationally? Do countries, in fact, have a moral responsibility to interfere in the affairs of others under particular circumstances, or do they only have a responsibility if a particular set of circumstances directly impacts on themselves?

And thirdly, should America attempt to restrain Israel from making any further aggressive moves? And, for that matter, is what Biden describes in the above article the policy that America should take towards other nations? If so, should other nations also take that same attitude of non-involvement towards Iran's (and perhaps North Korea's) nuclear program?

 

[J-man]

It's just a diplomatic trick to put pressure on Iran I assume. Sending out a message to Iran that they should talk about their nuclear program or otherwise they might suffer the consequences...

 

[CavLancer]

...Israeli consequences, not Obomber's...

 

[Camikaze]

It's just a diplomatic trick to put pressure on Iran I assume. Sending out a message to Iran that they should talk about their nuclear program or otherwise they might suffer the consequences...

So by publicly stating that they should not interfere in the affairs of others, America is saying that Iran should let them interfere in their affairs?

 

[Cutlass]

When a nation is threatened in it's security, it can meddle. It should not meddle for mere "sphere of influence" crap or economic advantage.

 

[amadeus]

I couldn't help but think that if the subject was Honduras, he wouldn't be saying that...

 

[Camikaze]

When a nation is threatened in it's security, it can meddle. It should not meddle for mere "sphere of influence" crap or economic advantage.

Okay then, so if we are to assume that Iran's nuclear program does pose a threat to America's security, and that the security of America's allies (i.e. Israel) is also linked to America's security, then shouldn't a conflict about Iran's nuclear program involving Israel therefore be grounds for America to meddle, contrary to what Biden is saying?

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that we can restrict our trade in order to affect policy elsewhere. There's a moral allowance, though it might not always be wise.

I'm in favour of proactive defensive strikes as a concept, but they're almost never actually a good idea in practice. The benefits of striking back are too high, and the costs of being struck first tend to be too low, for proactive defense to be justified.

I think there's a moral obligation to go in if there's a genocide going on.

 

[J-man]

Okay then, so if we are to assume that Iran's nuclear program does pose a threat to America's security, and that the security of America's allies (i.e. Israel) is also linked to America's security, then shouldn't a conflict about Iran's nuclear program involving Israel therefore be grounds for America to meddle, contrary to what Biden is saying?

I think Biden is saying that the US won't meddle with Isreal, the US does want to meddle with Iran.

 

[Cutlass]

Okay then, so if we are to assume that Iran's nuclear program does pose a threat to America's security, and that the security of America's allies (i.e. Israel) is also linked to America's security, then shouldn't a conflict about Iran's nuclear program involving Israel therefore be grounds for America to meddle, contrary to what Biden is saying?

Or maybe Israel is secretly our proxy in this......

 

[Camikaze]

I'm in favour of proactive defensive strikes as a concept, but they're almost never actually a good idea in practice. The benefits of striking back are too high, and the costs of being struck first tend to be too low, for proactive defense to be justified.

But wouldn't both sides of any conflict be justified in making proactive defensive strikes, in order to safeguard themselves from exactly that? It is, invariably, a vicious cycle. A must make a preemptive strike on B, meaning that B must act first and strike A etc. That doesn't really get you anywhere, but into a war.

I think there's a moral obligation to go in if there's a genocide going on.

Does that moral obligation only extend to genocide? Is there a line in the sand, or just an arbitrary kind of judgement call to be made?

I think Biden is saying that the US won't meddle with Isreal, the US does want to meddle with Iran.

So suddenly Iran isn't a sovereign nation?

 

[J-man]

Or maybe Israel is secretly our proxy in this......

Exactly what I think. It's like the US and Iran are neighbours. Iran is sitting in the yard with the radio loud. US complains "might turn that down a little?", Iran gives him the finger. US get his big rottweiler, holds on the leash and yells: "he hates radio's! I can't hold on for any longer!! turn it off fast!"

 

[Dachs]

Secondly, to what extent should nations be allowed to meddle in the affairs of other nations?

Who's gonna stop 'em? Answer, btw, is "unlimited".

 

[GoodGame]

Secondly, to what extent should nations be allowed to meddle in the affairs of other nations? In this situation, we see a third party declaring that they have no right to involvement in the affairs of the other two parties. Should this be a limit to the extent to which nations can interfere? Should there be any limits to what nations can interfere with? Should there only be a select few nations allowed to interfere internationally? Do countries, in fact, have a moral responsibility to interfere in the affairs of others under particular circumstances, or do they only have a responsibility if a particular set of circumstances directly impacts on themselves?

And thirdly, should America attempt to restrain Israel from making any further aggressive moves? And, for that matter, is what Biden describes in the above article the policy that America should take towards other nations? If so, should other nations also take that same attitude of non-involvement towards Iran's (and perhaps North Korea's) nuclear program?

I don't see much hypocrisy in Biden's talk, though 'isolationism as an indirect threat' is kind of comical, especially as Iran doesn't want our intervention, and that it's doubtful that the USA would invade Iran for kicks, given the the current world theatre (that'd be like playing the 3-front when the USA historically never wants more than 2-fronts).

But yeah this is basically a "Iran, Israel will bomb your nuke plants if you don't open them up."

Any political relations in the world theatre are complicated since nations rely on nations for support, trade, etc.. But really if the USA isn't interested in being Israel's white knight, then the USA should also not be restraining Israel from self-defense---that's a basic moral proposition. But we've been repeating this situation before many times in the past 30-50 years, especially when Israel is highly successful at pro-active self-defense (pro-active in invading other countries, and destroying strategic assets). All in all, it's generally more in the US's interest to promote stability and reform in the middle-East / SW Asia, and to do so with the involvement of the UN and other disinterested nations---and that usually means negotiations. Becoming overly interested in projecting force tends to results in skyscraper and barracks bombings, and pushes some nations to play rogue; Though a flipside may be that projecting power may also guarantee us a seat in the oil merchant's market.

 

[illram]

Standard government doublespeak as is always the case in this context.

 

[El_Machinae]

But wouldn't both sides of any conflict be justified in making proactive defensive strikes, in order to safeguard themselves from exactly that? It is, invariably, a vicious cycle. A must make a preemptive strike on B, meaning that B must act first and strike A etc. That doesn't really get you anywhere, but into a war.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Practically, it just doesn't work all that well. Theoretically, a pre-emptive strike should be quite justified

Does that moral obligation only extend to genocide? Is there a line in the sand, or just an arbitrary kind of judgement call to be made?

I think it's one of those "I know it when I see it" kinda things.