Slashdot Mirror


Iran War Clock Set At Ten Minutes To Midnight

Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic has assembled a high-profile panel of experts, including a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran, a Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Deputy Head of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, and a military correspondent at Haaretz, to periodically estimate the chances of conflict with Iran. The Iran War Clock is not designed to be pro-war or anti-war. Instead, the purpose is to estimate the chances of conflict in the hope of producing a more informed debate. Each panelist makes an individual estimate about the percentage chance of war and we report the average score and based on this number, the Iran War Clock is adjusted so that the hand moves closer to, or further away from, midnight. 'On the one hand, the panelists are highly knowledgeable. On the other hand, there are sufficient members of the panel that any individual error should not have an overly negative effect on the aggregate prediction.' If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight. Each extra 5 percent chance of war moves the hand one minute closer to midnight. 'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling. But it may be closer to the truth than the alternative forecasts available.' The panel's first estimate puts the odds of war in the next twelve months at 48 percent, consistent with predictions market Intrade.com, which estimates a 40 percent chance of a U.S./Israeli strike by December 2012."

48 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Brilliant! by nman64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hearing the ticking of a clock and seeing a deadline approaching always has a calming effect!

    I'm sure this will be taken every bit as seriously as the Doomsday Clock.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      A symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Brilliant! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. This analogy is evil. Clocks always go forwards.

      Plus, who decided that 20 to midnight is zero threat? This is guaranteed to make it sound like time is running out. Why not start at 0:00 (in which case we'd be at around 11am - much less scary)?

      All in all ,this is designed to scare people, nothing less.

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Framing? by Haffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    1. Re:Framing? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This was my first thought too!

      If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.

      People will see "20-minutes to midnight" and think OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@ (internet has changed how people thing)

      If you're used to seeing we're only 20 minutes from war- when war comes it is just because it is a foregone conclusion. No reason to complain to the government... we've been this close all along!

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Framing? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.

      I bet it's rusty too.

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.

      Or more likely to panic people into opposing a war with Iran. My view is that Obama wouldn't go to war without a Pearl Harbor incident. And he's not going to troll for one unlike say Lyndon B. Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incidents. So that leaves it up to other people such as the possible replacement for Obama. And that right there is probably the explanation. Get people thinking about a possible war with Iran now, then maybe they'll kick some money over to Obama's campaign warchest.

    3. Re:Framing? by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      You're f-in kidding, right?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Framing? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      It hurts too much take this as a joke, so I'm just going to say no, we have a moderate conservative as president right now.

      If you do not like who is running the country and making the policies, you can vote them out of office.

      Not really. Every election comes down to two candidates who, on the middle east, differ only in terms of whether they want to start wars or not. AIPAC and other pro-war interests are too strong to allow anyone into the short list who will say things like "The Israeli government is the aggressor in this situation, not Iran." The powers that be will not give us that option.

  3. All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is give peace a chance.

    1. Re:All we are saying..... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville.

      In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes. Bin Laden called for peace when he was being bombed in 2001. Hamas has called for peace when they were attacked by Israel. None of them seriously want peace; just time to reload.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  4. So in other words... by brainzach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The chance of going to war with Iran is a 9.5 based on a scale from 9 to 10.

    1. Re:So in other words... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      On a scale where 10 inches means 0 inches and 100 inches means 12 inches- I have a 12inch long um. banana.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  5. Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF - a zero chance of war means 11:40pm. Shouldn't that be closer to 12:01 AM? I mean 10 minutes to midnight (when, I presume, we launch the pumpkins and somebody gets caught wearing rags instead of a ball gown) sounds a lot worse when compared to a 24 hours day than to a 20 minute window.

    Threat Level for the day: Chartreuse

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by JeanCroix · · Score: 2

      I was hoping someone could explain the percent chance of war with Iran in terms of a car analogy. It would be about as apt as the clock.

  6. Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume none of you tech types are actually going to die in Oil War III?

    1. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, it'll be just like the last World War that started when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. Senseless gimmick by owlnation · · Score: 2

    This (and the Doomsday Clock) are just stupid gimmicks. They get in the way of facts. It's just lousy journalism.

    Just state the percentage chance -- percentages are clear. Even if they are just probabilities and do not necessarily reflect what will happen in any way.

    Considering Iran's leadership, anything could happen at any time. Using a retarded clock with a deliberately confusing scale isn't going to make that any clearer.

    1. Re:Senseless gimmick by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Senseless gimmick is right. Jesus christ. You can't assign a percentage figure to the chance that a particular war will break out. It's infantile. You just can't quantify it. It's all guesswork. Most of it is breathtakingly uninformed guesswork.

  8. And More Framing? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.

    I thought the same thing. Why not simply say "48% chance of war by December 2012"? Another thing I found quite humorous was that this is titled "The Iran War Clock" which made me think 'damn those war mongering religious fundamentalists' but then when I get to the end of the summary I see they reference a "U.S./Israeli strike" which makes me think 'perhaps this should be called The U.S./Isreali War Clock'? I mean, is this clock about Iran nuking a neighbor or Israel? Or is this clock about the US and Israel tag-teaming on Iran? Or is it a split and, if so, what's that split on the 48%?

    And yet another peculiar thing was that I searched around for the panel's positions and stances of each member in order to understand why this war clock is now at ten minutes and how this is any different than, say, the past twenty years of Iran. It's a coin flip that war will break out by the end of the year? Hasn't this always been sort of the sentiment with Iran? What makes this so different now, specifically?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  9. Further analysis. by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling

    Actually, we asked two guys if there would be a war. One said "yes", the other "no". So we were going to say there was a 50% chance, but then we changed it to 48% because that sounded more scientific.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  10. Re:Student of American History by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people are tired of it and the 5000 or so dead soldiers. there is close to 0 public support for another war

    and the US army isn't ready for it either

  11. How about no? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about we just stop playing world police? I don't want to send our youngsters out there to die in another shithole just because of overly paranoid people in government.

    Leave Iran alone. If they actually *ATTACK* our allies, *THEN* I can understand going to war. But let's not fucking START one.

    1. Re:How about no? by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      And the CIA has been supplying weapons and support to the Green movement trying to overthrow the government in Iran and Israel has been assassinating their scientists. See, it cuts both ways.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. Schwarzkopf didn't say that. by xx_chris · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was a Bush underling, Jed Babbin. Schwarzkopf was honored as a Honorary First-Class Private in the French Foreign Legion in 1991. France sent 18,000 troops to that war.

  13. Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every Israeli is require to serve in the military (or equivalent public service). And when those soldiers finish basic, they do it on top of Masada. Pretty powerful message. Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.

    If Israel wants to jump off the cliff and start a war, that's their business. If they would rather all die than to compromise with the Palestinians or Iranians in any way, that's their call. Build all the provocative settlements on Palestinian land you like, put up more walls to ghettoize them even more, kill all the Iranian nuclear scientists you like. Keep being pricks all you want.

    But this American doesn't want to follow them off the cliff that they seem DETERMINED to jump off of. I don't want to see my President start World War III out of some foolish bullshit belief that Israel is looking out for ANYONE else but Israel, that we're BFF's. Find another way to get the Jewish vote, Mr. President.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.

    2. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.

      That's not really fair; the Israeli military has probably been in more combat over the 64 years since the foundation of the country than has any other army on the planet. It's more like your crazy friend who goes out to the bar with you and gets both of you into fights. Which may be a sign that it's time too say, "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Odd, I'm an Israeli vet and I've never been to Masada as a soldier. Have been to the wailing wall at my end of bootcamp ceremony though.
      What makes you think we Israelis are so suicidal? we wouldn't have made such progress in mere decades if we didn't value life.
      Yes, there is a certain sense of paranoia in us Jews. But you're not paranoid if they are really after you ;-)
      We have to come up with a credible threat against Iran otherwise no sanctions at all would be placed against Iran's insane regime. Obama was falling all over himself trying to approach them when the forged elections and subsequent slaughter of demonstrators forced him to give up that pipe dream. Do you seriously want them to obtain nuclear weapons? Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt (if they don't all starve by then) have made it clear they will join the nuclear club if that happens. How is that in America's interest?
      I think an actual strike on Iran will end badly. Ending that psycho regime via sanctions will be good for everyone.

    4. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2

      --Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.--

      Uh, I don't think this statement is totally true and besides it was around 2000 years ago. I also find the remark slightly racist and I'm not even Jewish I don't think. Israel in 1948 accepted the UN resolution on the matter and the Arabs refused. The UK was in charge of Palestine then. So it's all their fault.

  14. Re:Student of American History by burnit999 · · Score: 2

    I feel like you haven't been watching the republican preliminaries...

  15. That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Eh... it could go either way (waggling hand).

    The world isn't about right and wrong and anyway, what you consider right and wrong is considered rather silly by 6 billion people. It is about trying to ensure that tomorrow won't be a hell of a lot worse then today. And a Muslim run world would be a hell of a lot worse? Want to proof me wrong? Reverse the migration streams. As bad as some claim the west is, a lot of people would risk a dangerous crossing in tiny boats for a living as toilet cleaners rather then be anywhere else.

    What does migration have got to do with it? Libya used to help Europe in stemming the tide of immigrants from further south. Further uproar in that area will not help stem further migration, it was one of the reasons actions against Libya were opposed in the west by a lot of people (because they were for peace you thought? How silly).

    Iran is a lynch pin in a very complex scenario where all the actors and their lines are unknown and performed in the dark for a blind audience. You could say it is playing a game but what game? With what rules and with which cards? The west has learned the hard way that enforcing its values on another culture doesn't work, Iraq and Afghanistan are disaster areas. Libya is too early to tell so going into Iran is unlikely be a quick easy win. But as long as Iran remains, Syria remains. Sudan remains, Northern Nigeria remains... gutting Iran would send a strong message but is also unacceptable... so what to do?

    Nothing? Then you keep having to react to whatever it pulls next... Iran not hostile? Yeah, the mass murdering in Sudan and Nigeria are just for laughs. Iran knows Muslims soldiers have the military value of they regimental donkey so they fight their wars by proxy.

    What do YOU propose is done in Syria? Nothing? Deny anything is wrong? Somehow blame it all on Israel? Well nothing you can do it about it without upsetting Iran. So thousands of Muslims die at the hand of Muslims and you do nothing? Speak up when you say that... no, that is not acceptable either.

    Politicians are often said to think as this, "people say something must done, this is something, so it must be done". That is true enough... but people keep shouting "something must be done". YOU come up with something better.

    Ideally, war should be the last answer, it often is. The pity is that it often also is the only answer. Will Iran be attacked by the end of the year? No idea. To many interest, not always as you expect, many conflicting and a lot of actors who are pulling unseen strings. It is not just about testing the west by proxy, those pulling those strings would also not want to be seen to fail again, so they might force their puppet to relax. (If Iran backed by China fails and the Chinese economy suffers are the oil now moves west again without China buying it cheap thanks to the Iran embargo limitting competition for it would the Chinese people realize they can rebel as well) Overly complex but that is how it is all connected.

    War happens when those pulling the wires loose control of them. It has been happenig quite a lot really and by definition of loosing control, you can't predict it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by busyqth · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't speak arabic in Iran.

    2. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by teaserX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By and large they speak Farsi in Iran. Saying they don't speak Arabic is like saying we don't speak Spanish in America.

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    3. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by couchslug · · Score: 2

      They are, however, infected with the Arab-centric superstition called "Islam" which informs their every action and political worldview.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      Shia Islam is sort of like 'we'll call Ahura Mazda "Allah" and the Arabs will leave us alone', it is very Persian and un-Arabic in its doctrine and mindset. That part of the world is still very much business as usual, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei are no crazier than Xerxes, and it is the exact same form of crazy. These are the same guys that Crassus and Leonidas fell to and that's the problem, while many Arabs tend to be a little bit on the thick side, I have never met a stupid Iranian and I've met quite a few. Also, while smart Arabs tend to be not particularly religious or crazy, I've met an Iranian engineer who used the phrase "praise Allah" multiple times during his doctoral defense at a top western university and got his PhD anyway.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    5. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Protosotme · · Score: 2

      No one in the world could spare on frickin bomb when those bombers flew over Aushwitz in WWII. Just one bomb to destroy the furnaces. So pardon us if we don't trust anyone but ourselves.
      Israel is a small country, a tank column can cross it in a day, so we can't allow Aushwitz happen again (and that's exactly what will happen when the same armies who conduct massacres in Syria, Eygpt and Lybia come to us), no matter what ignorant hypocrites like you say. Check what your dictionary / encyclopedia say about apartheid. Did you know that in Israel there is an arab in the supreme court? in the parliament? Save us your ignorance..

  16. Perfect timing by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just in time for daylight savings time, after which the clock will be 10 minutes until 1AM, crisis averted.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  17. you cannot have war profiteering by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with out new wars.

    1. Re:you cannot have war profiteering by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure you can. You just need the threat of a war, which will let you justify designing and building all sorts of new weapons, hiring new advisers, conducting field exercises, etc. You need a war every decade or two so that the threats seem valid, but we've already had plenty, so there's no need for another. All the profiteers need right now is saber-rattling, and they've got that in spades.

  18. If only it were that simple by yog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about Iran's continuing threats to destroy Israel, not just the supposedly mistranslated rhetorical device "wipe from map" but also the very real and unmistakable threats to destroy the country? What about their continued stockpiling of advanced missiles in Lebanon, manned by Iranian technicians, with the sole purpose of bombing Israel from just over the border, in direct violation of the 2006 UN-mediated armistice? What about Iran's continued sponsorship of terroristic activities all over the world? The large number of American soldiers blown up by Iranian-supplied bombs and armor-piercing ordnance in Iraq?

    You can cluck about peace all you want, and both a mercantile/high tech Israel and a war-weary U.S. would love it to be a peaceful world, but unfortunately the real world simply is not so, and Iran least of all. Most of the Iranian people doubtlessly want peace just as we do, but they are ruled by crazy mullahs who have an apocalyptic vision of a golden cloud over Jerusalem. They are planning to nuke Israel, and idiots in the West ignore this at their own peril. Not only would Israel undoubtedly retaliate and destroy most of Iran's cities, but the conflagration would probably spread. Tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people are going to die if we don't stop them, by sanctions or by espionage or by outright war.

    My gut feeling is that while the Israelis are talking war, they are actually planning more devious steps to halt the Iran nuclear project. For one thing, they have hinted all along that they have resources deeply embedded in Iran who have been sabotaging the nuclear projects since the 1980s. This may be a kind of disinformation, but Israel has thousands of Iranian immigrants to draw on, who are fluent in Farsi and the culture.

    Probably, Mossad is hoping to detonate a dirty nuke of some sort deep inside the enrichment facility that would render the place unusable, kill minimal bystanders, and set the Iranians back by several years. It would be hard to trace the cause, and Iran would be faced with either admitting it was building nukes, or else try to cover it up while trying to rebuild, a daunting prospect given the tightening noose of sanctions. This would be the most appealing outcome to the situation.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  19. Re:Too late by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Iran has been at war with us since the revolution.

    More like America has been at war with Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew their popular democratically elected leader for oil profits. Learn some history. The 1979 revolution was payback after years of being under an American puppet leader.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  20. Re:Fascist Theocracy by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow your ignorance of the Iranian people and culture is mind boggling, that you actually believe what you wrote is terrifying.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  21. Re:Student of American History by jps25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It might be your nature. It isn't mine. It isn't human nature. And there's everything wrong with it.

  22. Re:Ides of March by lgw · · Score: 2

    Israel will likely move sooner rather than later - they have no desire to get nuked, and no illusions about Iran's attitude towards them. I'm not sure we'll be a part of it. There's no real need for boots on the ground in Iran: the government is quite dependent on shoveling oil money to the citizens to keep control, that if someone bombed the oil platforms the government would collapse. And if that happens, it won't be $5/gallon gas at the pumps that Obama has to worry about in November.

    Israel has plenty of military power for this. I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support, but I wouldn't bet on it with the current administration (has Obama ever visited Israel as president?).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  23. Re:Student of American History by artor3 · · Score: 2

    So you care as much about the old guy who just this second passed away (and another this second, and yet another this second) as you would (did?) about your own father passing?

    Either your an emotionless psychopath, or you must spend every waking moment in mourning. The rest of us care more about people the closer we are to them. We love our immediate family more than our friends, our friends more than acquaintances, acquaintances more than friends of friends, friends of friends more than a random guy across town, a random guy across town more than a random guy across the country, a random guy across the country more than a random guy across the world, a random guy across the world more than a random guy from a century ago, and a random guy from a century ago more than a random guy from a millennium ago.

    If you want to pretend to be a perfectly rational robot, aren't the deaths of the people killed during the sack of Babylon in the 16th century BC just as sad as those of the people killed in the recent midwest tornadoes? Of course, no actual human being would feel that way, but if it makes you feel special, go on pretending.

  24. Re:Ides of March by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    they have no desire to get nuked

    Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program. Even Israeli intelligence feels attacking Iran is a bad idea. Though, it'd be real good for the military industrial complex and the financiers.

    I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support

    Really, we should kill people in far off lands who don't threaten us because some war-mongers are creating propaganda about fake weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we just learn this lesson?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  25. Re:Chances of war? by Whatanut · · Score: 2

    That's pretty much the point. No matter how you look at it, this way of depicting things says war is inevitable. Clocks are intended to move forward. Eventually we're going to get to midnight.

    --

    yvan eht nioj
  26. The decision to go to war has already been made by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

    They are only negotiating the dates and times. Before or after the election.

    --
    Deleted