The Hebrew word “balagon” (בלגאן), means something like "big mess." It can refer to a situation as simple as running out of gas, or a chaotic and multifaceted problem like global warming. If you want to read more about the etymology of this word, check out: http://balagan.org.uk/balagan.htm
This blog will be focused on the current political situation in the Middle East, with a particular focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The idea is to have a place to reflect on current events, in the context of history as I understand it, and to engage others in this pursuit. Most blog posts will have two sections, the first a description of an issue, and the second an attempt at a creative solution.
A quick note on intellectual hubris: I do not portend to completely solve the “balagon” here, just to propose ideas. I do not consider myself an authority on matters historical, political geographic or anything else. I am merely a reasonably educated citizen who wants to open up a mono/dia/polylogue. I will listen to all feedback and criticism, factual of otherwise, as long as it is stated in a polite manner.
The reader should know that I am a twenty-six year old American Jew. Of course I will try to be “fair and balanced” in my digressions, but I feel that it is impossible to completely eliminate any bias. Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!
As you may know, the Obama administration has been pressuring the Iranian regime to engage in a peaceful dialogue concerning their nuclear program. The Americans indicated a deadline of September 2009 for a response, and the Iranians just sent out a document that is supposed to be their answer. You can read it at:
It is safe to say that the Iranians are stalling. They waited until the last possible minute to publish this, and it says basically nothing. By this I mean that there are oblique references to their nuclear program, the supposed topic of discussion, but nothing specific. The main text is basically stating that they are ready to talk, and setting up principles to guide the discussion. None of this is new, and fits with the general Iranian strategy of veiled hostility towards western powers in the form of Ta’arouf, stubbornly protecting their sovereignty while establishing their moral superiority, all the while not budging an inch on enrichment and sending up a smoke screen as they continue to spin centrifuges.
One line I feel is particularly egregious is the one about “free and fair elections,” in light of the barbaric repression of the homegrown Reform Movement. However, there is a limit to the usefulness of complaining about Iranian intransigence in regards to their nuclear program. This has become routine, for America, Israel and pretty much the entire world. Its not very productive. I am more interested in identifying the hypocrisy of the relevant regimes, in regards to the Iranian Nuclear Issue, and then disregarding this rhetoric and getting to the real meat of the issue.
It is a given that all governments are deeply hypocritical. Even in a political system as “enlightened” as representative democracy, politicians promise one thing during election season, and once in office not only renege on promises but also abandon supposedly “core” principles. I would argue that while this is reprehensible, even morally repugnant, it is a necessary symptom of managing a country and facing political realities, but that is another discussion entirely.
In terms of the Iranian nuclear issue, I would argue that there are 3 ‘super relevant’ parties, militarily speaking (America, Iran, and Israel). Additionally there is one powerful and unpredictable wild card (Russia) and many supporting parties (EU countries, China, the Sunni Bloc). In terms of the “super relevant 3” and the Iranian issue, each is deeply guilty of hypocrisy.
America: Progenitors of nuclear weapons, in possession of world’s biggest and best nuclear arsenal, and the only country to use a nuke in wartime aggression. The Iranians already have a complex about getting pushed around by the Americans (not least because of the coup against Mosaddeq), and this attitude of ‘we can have nukes because we are good and you are Evil so you cannot’ does not sit very well in Tehran. Additionally there is the recent American nuclear deal with India, who never signed non-proliferation pact.
Israel: Only nuclear armed country in the Middle East (I consider Pakistan part of South Asia). Even though Israel has never admitted it has a nuclear program, the whole world surely knows about Dimona, and also that this capacity was developed covertly with the help of the United States and France. Israel has bombed Iraqi and Syrian reactors, and is threatening to take down Iran's. Israel argues, rightfully so, that an Iranian nuclear bomb is an existential threat. However, it is clearly hypocritical to argue that Israel was right in developing a covert nuclear program and then demand that Iran be completely transparent in theirs.
Iran: Claims peaceful intents only, but won’t let UN inspectors view most of their facilities. They have stonewalled IAEA and other efforts to glean information. Coupled with the facts of Iran’s immense oil wealth, the UN sanctions against the regime and the people, and given the lunatic and provocative propaganda of Ahmadinejad, it is impossible believe that Iran would go to these lengths merely to prove a point and build a few nuclear plants.
As we have just seen, all three major parties are guilty of intense hypocrisy. The crux of the issue is the following:
Everyone wants nuclear weapons, and everyone wants their neighbors not to have them. The countries without the nuclear capacity say ‘why not us?’ and the nations with capacity say ‘because we say so and we have nukes.' In a way, both sides of the coin are equally correct and rational. As time and technology progress, and nuclear weapons (both new and “used") become easier to acquire, these vexing problems will continue to haunt us.
One thread I picked up from reading the recent Iranian document is that they see this issue as part of a larger set, and that they will not be subjected to different treatment than the rest of the world. Basically, Iran is not going to give up their program when they see neighbors like Israel, Pakistan, and India with a bomb, especially when they already feel marginalized and isolated from the rest of the world.
Additionally, the domestic political scene in Iran contributes to this stubborn, though justifiable, rhetoric. Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have effectively staked their political fortunes on the nuclear issue. They face increasing political isolation, a ruined economy, and a potent if underwhelming contrarian civilian population. The Iranian regime cannot afford to let the “Americans push them around,” and give up their program, after they have railed about their sovereignty and “rights” for so long. In short, they are already in dangerous waters and against a wall, so they need to appear strong.
Fortunately, this opens up an avenue for creative diplomacy. The West can give the Iranians what they claim to want, peaceful nuclear production, while providing economic and security incentives, all the while “saving the face” of the regime. This offer will look quite reasonable, and if the Iranians don’t accept, it could mean big trouble at home. I can explain.
Instead of making the issue solely about Iran, Obama, as 'leader of the free world,' should frame it as part of a worldwide nuclear arms reduction program. The US and Russia have made some progress on this, since the SALT II treaty expired, but it could use a kick in the pants. Additionally, states like France and Great Britain would happily play along, and perhaps nuclear-armed Pakistan and India could be brought into the fold. Of course, the Israelis would need to kick something in as well, but they may well be convinced, since the alternative of a strike against Iran (especially without full US consent or assistance), is a balagon of epic proportions.
In return for the above countries limiting their nuclear arsenals, Iran would be asked to submit to full UN inspections of all nuclear facilities, and some sort of deal regarding disposal of spent fuel rods. There could also be the added incentive of Russian assistance in building Iran power plants, which America could offer in exchange for cleaning up antiquated Russian nuclear sites, long a pet issue of Obama’s.
Though this is indeed quite a long shot, the combination of cooperation in arms reduction, sanction removal, a security guarantee against Israeli aggression (based of course on full disclosure), and broad economic cooperation would be a powerful package indeed. The proposal would put the Iranian regime in a really tough spot. Their bluff is effectively called in the eyes of the world community, as they claim to want peaceful enrichment, and this is provided on a silver platter, along with security and economic incentives. Additionally, the can sell this agreement to their people as a victory, in that they did not capitulate to the US and are continuing to enrich uranium on their soil.
The Iranians will be led to believe that this is a final offer, as the “stick” is being provided by the powerful Israel Defense Forces, with tacit American consent. The people of Iran are anxious to avoid war, and many want an open economy, so if the regime refuses the offer, it may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The tide of revolution may not break onto the beach, but it will certainly be storming the barricades.
Either way, an agreement or further isolation leading to a possible overthrow, the West wins and avoids a catastrophic war.
Living in Jeruslalem, Israel, with my lovely wife Lana. I just started writing these Dvarei Torah, and hope to start discussions with anyone who is into it.
