A number of bloggers have noted that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s latest rhetorical attacks on Israel.Steven Peter Rosen wonders if the change in terminology is a harbinger of something more sinister. (via memeorandum)
Some streams of discourse are chronically laden with dehumanizing rhetoric. Detecting meaningful shifts requires close study of the discourse of interest over time, and I have not done this with regard to Iran and Israel. Casual observation suggests that references to Israel as a “cancer†are old, but that the reference to Israel as a “black and dirty microbe†is new.On the basis of my historical research, my recommendation was that a significant shift in discourse of this character be used as a indicator that we should focus intelligence collection assets on a target that is now suspected of being willing to engage in mass killing by unconventional means, and to issue specific deterrent threats of retaliation.
The Belmont Club counters that the likelihood of Iran using biological weapons against Israel is more related to its ability to protect its own population.
The critical nature of these variables implies that any enemy country or terrorist organization contemplating a strike must game things out beforehand. This would probably take the form of a deniable test attack to see how Israel or the US respond. Or perhaps an unrelated Western country could be chosen as the guinea pig to see how an equivalent society would fare in the face of a similar threat. Without a test run to gauge the effects of their weapons an enemy force would run too great a risk that the strike would fail, exposing them to a devastating response. Second, even primitive enemies would probably take steps to protect their core assets from a riposte by investing in low-tech precautions like creating redoubts in distant areas to which key personnel could retreat. Again, the key to early warning is to detect enemy defensive or planning operations first.
But what if Rosen and the Belmont club are being too specific in their approach? Maybe the change in terminology isn’t indicative of a non-conventional attack but of a conventional one.
The other day David Hazony wondered if Israel and Hezbollah were headed to war again. He concluded that, despite the escalating tensions, neither side was anxious to fight right now.
Of course another possibility is that Hezbollah (and its sponsors Syria and Iran) is less likely to fight now that Imad Mughniyeh is dead. Assuming that Israel killed Mughniyeh, maybe they did it to avert an attack or even war in the near future that he was involved in planning.
There is a lot going on now, much of it underneath the radar. Maybe Israeli is fighting Lebanon III but doing it a lot more quietly and effectively than Lebanon II.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
