Goldberg Plays the War Drum...Same Old Tune.....

In Jeffery Goldberg's rather boring and quite expected piece in the Atlantic, which hearkens the coming Israeli strike on Iran, there is a plethora of things to respond to. One thing I found most interesting was in a video linked in the online version of the article where Goldberg interviews the ailing Christopher Hitchens. Goldberg asks Hitchens what he would do with Iran. Hitchens, putting himself in Obama's shoes, says the following:

The United States is the first country in the UN, the promulgator of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and many things that go - and the Geneva conventions. Not just a signatory, but the people that cause other people to sign those things. The Iranian regime has, several times, publicly, not just sworn, but signed its name to documents in front of the International Atomic Energy Authority [sic], the United Nations, the European Union, that it has no ambition to weaponize its nuclear program. If, after that, it is found that they have driven such a force, then there is no such thing as international law, any more, and it would mean that we watched as it was contemptuously dismantled. Trampled. Well, in that case, I see absolutely no reason not to take out the regime that invites that. In fact, I think it's more or less an obligation.

So by that logic, since international law matters so dearly, would Hitchens advocate regime change in Israel? For more on Israel's record with international law you can read John Duggard, Richard Falk, Amnesty International's Zahir Janmohamed and many more. Goldberg asks Hitchens, claiming that this is the 'Iranian argument', if the same could apply to Israel. Not surprisingly, Hitchens has a double standard for Israel in his answer calling it a "status-quo power" which I supposed means that international law only applies to, and should be enforced upon, non-nuclear states.

Regarding Goldberg's actual article [yawn] we are seeing much of the same old tired bomb Iraq Iran rhetoric which Goldberg was a big part of before the Iraq war. I'm not going to waste much time rebutting what I think are terrible ideas with little basis in reality. I am sure plenty of others with far more time and patience will do that.

I will however say two things. First, as vulnerable as the United States is now with a weak economy, skyrocketing debt, and an overstretched military, DO NOT underestimate the possibility that the American people will once again buy into the scare tactics that lead to war. Prior to the war on Iraq, which I vehemently opposed, I thought that the American people would, by and large, see through the nonsense that the administration and people like Jeffery Goldberg were pitching about Iraq's mythical connections to Al-Qaeda and it being an imminent nuclear threat. I didn't think America would listen to these used-car salesmen. I was wrong. I also thought, that after the invasion and the clear reality that this war would be no "cake-walk", as it was described, and after no WMDs were ever found, that the American people would reject the government that deceived them in 2004. Again, I was wrong.

So, while I truly want to believe that this country will not be fooled again, I have learned my lesson. That's why those beating the war drums must be called out for what they are: Misguided proponents of belligerency that jeopardize the broader American interest.

Second, much of the rhetoric you will hear from pro-Iran war types will try to describe Iran and its regime as an irrational actor. You may hear terms like "messianic cult" or "maniacal dictator". If so, please remind yourself that you live on planet earth and not in a Marvel Comic book. There is little doubt that Iran, like other states, has a horrible human rights record, but that is the modus operendi for most authoritarian states, including Israel. That doesn't make their decision making irrational. Nor do ridiculous or anti-Semitic statements from their leaders, which Goldberg seems to have chronicled for years in anticipation of this article, prove that their decision calculus is anything but realist in nature. The best indication of the nature of a state's decision making is its previous decision making. And, historically, the Iranian state, especially in the revolutionary era, has acted as a rational actor with regime survival as its top priority. In fact, that is likely the very reason they seek a nuclear deterrent.

The proponent's of war want you to believe that Iran is suicidal because only a suicidal Iran would ever deploy a nuclear weapon. Certainly, introduction of a nuclear weapon would mean termination for the Iranian regime. So for their argument to make sense, you have to be made to believe that Iran hates the Jews so much that they embrace death for it. The story goes that these Islamic Radicals, this 'messianic cult', is so driven by their Islamic ideology that they would overlook the obvious reality that they would kills millions of Muslims and destroy Islam's third holiest site in Jerusalem with a nuclear strike on Israel because, well, they're just that damn crazy. Don't buy it. I went into some of the reasons Iran would not attack Israel here.

Iran's behavior in reaching for a nuclear deterrent is strikingly similar to another state in the region. Just as Israel did in the 1950s and 60s, Iran now reaches for a nuclear deterrent because it is isolated and surrounded by perceived enemies. This isn't the mark of mad men, but merely realists who accurately perceive surrounding threats. Should those threats dissipate, and a speedy American withdrawal from Iraq is part of this, then the Iranian decision calculus would likely shift away from weaponization.

The American war on Iraq not only had devastating consequences for the civilians of Iraq , but also for the entire region from Pakistan to Palestine. There is no doubt that there is a noticeable shift in the regional power dynamic since the end of Saddam's regime and a key part of this is extended Iranian hegemony. This is part of the backgammon game (Mahbooseh for those who know the version I'm taking about) Iran and the US are playing throughout the region to position deterrent forces in sensitive areas of interest.

The answer to this standoff has always been a decrease in tensions, not an increase, diplomacy, not belligerency, and a realization of the perceived threats of the US and Iran.

While Goldberg may try to sell us a lemon again and promulgate the idea that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, those best informed know that the most existential threat to Israel is its 43 year occupation and 60+ year record of dispossessing Palestinians. Only a peace agreement based on justice and international law can change that. Of course, Goldberg and Netnayahu, would rather change the subject and talk about Iran.

Did I mention that Jeffery Goldberg was a corporal in the Israeli Defense Forces? But I'm sure he'd say that a person's background, private or professional, or even their private views, can be kept separate from their current professional life as a journolist journalist.

Or, maybe not.

Share |