I wrote yesterday about my thoughts on Jeffery Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic which suggested that the US better bomb Iran before Israel does. In my comments I didn't respond to all the suggestive claims in the several thousand word article and mentioned that I'd leave that to others who would likely have a field day with it. Here is a round up of some of responses that Goldberg's bomb Iran tune set off.
Amjad Atallah writes in Foreign Policy debunking the often repeated myth by pro-war types that the Arabs secretly want the US or Israel to strike Iran. Atallah notes that "hardly a day goes by without some new article touting Arab government support for a U.S. attack on Iran". He continues:
Interestingly, Palestinian Citizens of Israel have remarkably similar views regarding Iran's nuclear program as other Arabs. This is worth noting because this community is fluent Hebrew speakers, regularly consumes Israeli media output, and would fall prey in any Iranian attack on Israel. So the fact that this segment of the Israeli population is not afraid of a nuclear Iran, and a majority supports Iran's nuclear rights, suggests that the threat is perhaps over-hyped in the Israeli media.
Glen Greenwald at Salon.com exposes a pretty obvious contradiction in Goldberg's arguments for war on Iran and Iraq:
Tony Karon asks an important yet simple question: "Why are the Israelis Telling Their ‘Secret’ Iran Attack Plans to Jeffrey Goldberg?" The answer:
I wonder how many proponents of war/attacks on Iran were also on the record supporting the War on Iraq. This would make for a very interesting study. If the correlation is high, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it is, maybe we should ask why?
read more...
Amjad Atallah writes in Foreign Policy debunking the often repeated myth by pro-war types that the Arabs secretly want the US or Israel to strike Iran. Atallah notes that "hardly a day goes by without some new article touting Arab government support for a U.S. attack on Iran". He continues:
At the end of the day, the Arab public is not only not concerned about Iran's regional strength, but thinks it would be better for the region, probably in light of America's perceived weakness vis-à-vis Israel, for that regional strength to continue - unlike the assessment of their rulers. However, on the need to end Israel's occupation, there is unanimity between the rulers and the ruled.I would add here an interesting tidbit regarding Arab perceptions of Iran. Amjad notes the recent polling done by Shibley Telhami regarding Arab attitudes toward Iran. This is important. But what I find particularly interesting is the attitudes of Palestinian citizens of Israel toward Iran. Telhami conducted another poll in 2009 to capture these attitudes. You can read more about that poll and the views of Palestinian Citizens of Israel here and see the slide show here.
A final note on those misconstruing the nature of Arab government concerns - at the end of the day, Arab governments want to remain in power. A strong and popular United States is the ultimate guarantor of that until there is a transition to representative forms of government. A United States that has been unable to secure Palestinian independence, that is still tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is reeling from a new war with Iran will be neither.
Interestingly, Palestinian Citizens of Israel have remarkably similar views regarding Iran's nuclear program as other Arabs. This is worth noting because this community is fluent Hebrew speakers, regularly consumes Israeli media output, and would fall prey in any Iranian attack on Israel. So the fact that this segment of the Israeli population is not afraid of a nuclear Iran, and a majority supports Iran's nuclear rights, suggests that the threat is perhaps over-hyped in the Israeli media.
Glen Greenwald at Salon.com exposes a pretty obvious contradiction in Goldberg's arguments for war on Iran and Iraq:
This is what a propagandist, by definition, does: asserts any claim as fact in service of a concealed agenda without the slightest concern for whether it's true. Will the existence of a vast and menacing Iraqi nuclear program help my cause (getting Americans to attack Iraq)? Fine, then I'll trumpet that. Now, however, it will help my cause (mainstreaming an attack on Iran) to claim that the Israelis permanently ended Iraq's nuclear efforts in 1981, thus showing how well these attacks can work. No problem: I'll go with that. How can anyone take seriously -- as a Middle East expert and especially as a journalist -- someone with this blatant and thorough of an estrangement from any concern for truth? Can anyone reconcile these factual claims?Steven Clemons takes exception with Goldberg's argument at Washington Note. He argues, unlike Goldberg, that Iran is a rational actor and not a suicidal radical regime. Here is an excerpt:
What drives deterrence, and resulting stability, is that two warring parties can create unacceptably high costs for the other. And the US, in order to try and secure stability in the Middle East and offering an opening for Iran to come into the international community with American support if it changes course, feels that it needs to threaten military action.Stephen Walt has a must read on Goldberg's piece in ForeignPolicy.com:
My own view of Iran differs from that of Netanyahu who told Goldberg, "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs." While I am uncomfortable with and oppose a nuclear-armed Iran as well, Iran has shown itself to be a strategic, rational, albeit ruthless, calculator of its interests -- not an irrational, suicidal nation. It has been at odds with the U.S. for decades and displays more the attributes of a severe abuse victim whose view of the world and its options have been distorted and mal-shaped from being under regime change siege for so long. There is no likely quick fix to the absence of trust between Iran and the US and its allies.
In short, a central purpose of this article is to mainstream the idea that an attack on Iran is likely to happen and savvy people-in-the-know should start getting accustomed to the idea. In other words, a preemptive strike on Iran should be seen not as a remote or far-fetched possibility, but rather as something that is just "business-as-usual" in the Middle East strategic environment. If you talk about going to war often enough and for long enough, people get used to the idea and some will even begin to think if it is bound to happen sooner or later, than "'twere better to be done quickly." In an inside-the-Beltway culture where being "tough" is especially prized, it is easy for those who oppose "decisive" action to get worn down and marginalized. If war with Iran comes to be seen as a "default" condition, then it will be increasingly difficult for cooler heads (including President Obama himself) to say no.Paul Woodward hits the nail on the head at War in Context:
You'll recall that a similar process of "mainstreaming" occurred over Iraq: What at first seemed like the far-fetched dream of a handful of out-of-power neoconservatives in 1998 had become a serious option by 2001. By 2003, aided in no small part by the efforts of journalists such as Goldberg, the idea had been embraced by liberals and others who should have known better.
Worried about an Israeli attack on Iran? That’s the idea.
You must do what we can’t, because if you don’t, we will.
This is how some Israelis are trying to twist Washington’s arm to get the US to attack Iran.
A more honest way of making the argument would be to say this: If the US won’t attack Iran, then Israel will — even though it won’t accomplish its military objectives and it will open Pandora’s box. Desperate nations sometimes do desperate things. You have been warned.
Another name for this: blackmail.
Tony Karon asks an important yet simple question: "Why are the Israelis Telling Their ‘Secret’ Iran Attack Plans to Jeffrey Goldberg?" The answer:
In your dreams, Jeff: The Israelis talk to you because they want to convey a particular message in Washington; and the White House talks to you because they want you to convey a particular message to the Israelis and, more importantly, to some of their most powerful backers in America.Here is an article with an opposite take. Michael Eisenstadt and David Christ add to the hype. Their claim is that Iran may strike first so we better beat those sneaky Iranians to the punch. They write:
...it is at least as likely that an increasingly belligerent Tehran will be the one that makes the move that sparks a conflict with the United States -- whether by an act of terrorism, by facilitating insurgent attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by a military provocation in the Gulf or elsewhere -- unless Washington, acting with both caution and firmness, moves to avert such an eventuality.Interestingly, the authors of this piece are from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the please-don't-think tank established by the premier Israel lobby, AIPAC. WINEP was in full support of the War on Iraq and since war on Iran would keep pressure off of Israel from making concessions and would guarantee Israeli regional hegemony the boys at WINEP are all for this one too.
I wonder how many proponents of war/attacks on Iran were also on the record supporting the War on Iraq. This would make for a very interesting study. If the correlation is high, and I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it is, maybe we should ask why?
