middle east
22 Apr 2009
Israel To Bomb Iran? Don't Believe The Hype
The Israel lobby wants to bomb Iran, but calmer heads can see plenty of reasons not to. This time the lobby may not get what it wants, writes Antony Loewenstein
Roger Cohen, a columnist for the New York Times recently urged Obama to read Trita Parsi's superb work Treacherous Alliance — The secret dealings of Israel, Iran and the US. Early in it, Parsi places in context the current fear-mongering over Iran's supposed desire to obliterate Israel:"Though the Iranian revolution was a major setback for Israel, it didn't stop the Jewish state from supporting Iran and seeking to improve its relations with the Khomeini government as a counter to Israel's Arab enemies. Ironically, when Iranian leaders called for Israel's destruction in the 1980s, Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in Washington lobbied the United States not to pay attention to Iranian rhetoric."
So what changed? The end of the Cold War and the event of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Parsi explains that, "strategic considerations that had put Iran and Israel on the same geopolitical side in the latter part of the 20th century evaporated. Soon enough, absent any common foes, Israel and Iran found themselves in a rivalry to redefine the regional order after the decimation of Iraq's military."
Parsi painstakingly reveals the process by which the Jewish state convinced much of the West that Tehran's mullahs were irrational and prone to suicidal tendencies, despite the long-standing pragmatic decisions pursued by the Islamic Republic.
On that score, nothing has changed in nearly 20 years.
"Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites" the London Times claimed last weekend. The story used largely anonymous Israeli sources and the message was clear: if America doesn't join us, we will hit Iran anyway. An article in Ha'aretz is already talking about a "timetable" for military action. Sometime in 2010 is the new deadline (which in the past has been 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009).
The recent sentence of Iranian/American journalist Roxana Saberi for spying has added complications to the Obama Administration's slight but significant overtures towards Tehran. However, many key players in America, Israel and Iran have too much invested in warming relations between the Jewish and Islamic states. From the other direction, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made similarly positive noises.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warned Israel last week that any military action would not stop Iran's nuclear activities and would merely embolden the mullahs to accelerate whatever program it has. Of course, Israel would never consider an attack without first asking for Washington's permission, and a key Washington insider has claimed that an Israeli attack on Iran is highly unlikely as long as the Americans are in Iraq.
An intriguing angle to the growing diplomatic proceedings was a quote that recently appeared in Israel's biggest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot. The US Administration is allegedly talking about assisting in the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear "threat" in return for the evacuation of West Bank settlements. A conversation reportedly took place recently between the White House Chief of Staff and Obama confidante, Rahm Emmanuel, and a senior Jewish leader in Washington. Emmanuel is reported to have said: "Over the next four years there will be a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states and we don't particularly care who will be the prime minister."
Obama is apparently not playing by the same rulebook as George W Bush.
The idea that America can impose a settlement is fanciful, presuming that's what Washington truly wants to do. Intense pressure can undoubtedly be applied to the Jewish state to evacuate the thousands of illegal colonies in the West Bank, but the new Benjamin Netanyahu Government is already baulking at entering into discussions with the Palestinians. Meanwhile, in Gaza they're still suffering.
Thankfully, Obama's main regional envoy, George Mitchell, has rejected their wish for the Palestinians to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state before negotiations even begin. The fact that Israel's borders have never been set due to ever-expanding settlement should have made the wish moot. Furthermore, why should the Palestinians have to support the concept of a racially exclusionary nation that actively discriminates against Arabs and Palestinians?
Besides, as a US official said in response: "nations don't recognise other nations as anything in particular. How a nation state defines itself is the business only of the country itself". Netanyahu's ploy is simply to buy time, something the Jewish Diaspora is seemingly willing to allow him to do.
The Australian Jewish establishment remains incapable of engaging with the issues maturely, preferring to offer slogans and Israeli Government talking points. Witness the example of Melbourne University academic Dvir Abramovich expressing in this week's Australian Jewish News that after the recent visit of Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper, Jews here were upset because of "the fibre of deep connection, loyalty and commitment to Israel means that any attack upon it resonates as if it were an attack on our sons, daughters and brothers."
Yes, Abramovich's feelings are hurt, which is clearly far more important than addressing the issues Halper raised, namely the apartheid system in the West Bank. Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf on his blog outlines the direction in which his country is heading, where the occupation and Arabs are invisible and examples of Jewish racism are a daily occurrence.
While the Australian Jewish establishment weeps over a country they infantilise, Ha'aretz has reported that Obama intends to push Israel to open negotiations with both the Palestinians and Syrians in an attempt to "restrain Tehran's influence and contribute to the diplomatic effort to block Iran's nuclearisation". While the prospect of possible negotiations is obviously a good sign, we have been down similar paths before. Talks for the sake of talks. Negotiations that lead nowhere while colonies expand. And there is little chance that the divided Palestinian leadership will be prepared to demilitarise their territory in line with such talks.
Tragically, some of the loudest Jewish voices in Israel and America are almost begging for a military strike against Iran. David Samuels, a contributing editor at Harper's, writes on Slate about a "rational argument" for an attack. "Who can really argue with the idea of trading the Iranian nuclear bomb for a Palestinian state?", he asks. This is a curious way to frame the question. The "logic" that he presents for such a strike is that , apparently, "Israel would buy itself another 40 years as the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East."
The fact that Samuels can write such irrational and racist tripe without once mentioning the word "occupation" shows that he believes the status quo of Israel as a coloniser of Palestinian land is acceptable. It is, as Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf blogs, symptomatic of the current Israeli mainstream:
"... Many people don't think there is such a thing as 'the occupation ... Unlike the years before Oslo, almost nobody visits the West Bank anymore, and Palestinians don't enter Israel. For most Israelis, the Palestinian problem is an abstract concept, almost imaginary. The drive from some Tel Aviv suburbs to the nearest Palestinian city takes about 10 minutes, but these are two separate worlds."
Nobody can deny the vile anti-Semitism that exists within certain sections of the Iranian political elite (described yet again in a recent New Yorker feature by Jon Lee Anderson), but none of this has anything to do with the current standoff between the West and Tehran. This is all about power politics in the Middle East and who has the right to be top dog.
Ultimately no state has the right to act illegally or aggressively, something the Jewish nation has become particularly good at (as has Iran, at times). The current circus around the Durban II conference in Geneva, with Iran being placed at the centre of world evil, is merely continuing the charade.
A nuclear-free Middle East should be the goal of any negotiations, an outcome curiously absent from virtually all of the current debate.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Interesting alleged statement from Emanuel there. I’d be surprised if he was right. Whatever Israel’s talk and wishes, the Anthony Cordesman at CSIS has concluded they don’t have the logistical capability to pull an airstrike off at the moment, but could use a missile strike with 52 Jericho IIIs instead, assuming the Jericho III is as capable as has been discussed.
http://philannetta.blogspot.com
Iran has not attacked anyone for 100 years (Iraq started the Iraq/Iran war) while Israel on the other hand…..
let me count the nations Israel has attacked; let us count the ways in which Israelis a racist state; let us count the way in which Israel threatens its neighbours and bombs them at will; let us count the ways in which Israel uses massive military might to enforce one of the most vicious, venal and murderous occupying and colonising regimes in modern history.
And Israelis and their supporters have the gall to say Iran is a threat! I am increasingly of the view that most Israelis and all of their supporters are delusional, bordering on mentally insane. Which makes them even more dangerous.
Nice one Antony.
rosross,
That’s a stupid point and shouldn’t be raised. It doesn’t matter if Iran hasn’t attacked anyone. Governments and leaderships change over time…these governments and leaders usually differ on the use of military force.
But Iran has attacked Israel…on numerous occasions. They’re simply using the proxy armies of Hezbollah and Hamas. The weapons that are fired at Israel are Iranian, the terrorists who invade and kill Israeli’s are trained by Iran. Your statement is wrong!
Unfortunately, rosross, people only see what they WANT to see! And after 60 odd years of intense emotional blackmail and propaganda, even Jewish people in Australia, and particularly the USA, they are totally blind to reality. It is all a matter of FAITH!!
The Churches all operate on the same principle. And the Jews, with their strong religious connections to what they see as the Promised Land (from generations of lies and garbage) have eyes and ears only for what pap they are fed from the Zionists in israel.
So damned easy to start wars. Just designate ‘others’ as the ‘enemy’, insinuate that they are not ‘human’ and deserving of normal consideration, and away go the bombers and snipers! The Yanks have proved this many times, but before them, lots of others.
For so many years israeli propaganda has designated Arabs as non-human, with particular emphasis on Palestinians. The whole world seems to have bought this lie, hook line and sinker!
So much so that a perpetrated and continuing genocide of Palestinians can continue unabated, with little or no objections from Europeans, who once upon a time actually backed the Palestinian cause. They have thrown away all moral authority!
I can hope that Antony is right and Obama has some well hidden intestinal fortitude, but the AIPAC lobby and others have their tendrils of power and influence buried deep within all aspects of American politics and business (as they have indeed in Australia and other Western countries) and opinion is that Obama will not buck the Congress (practically owned by the Zionists) or the Jew owned Business lobbies, for a well earned fear of political annihilation next election, when the full force of these Lobbies and owned Media are turned upon them.
The Jewish Diaspora has been tuned, coached, blind-sided, bred and ‘taught’, their minds turned to jelly by the Zionist push, and seem to act in very well tuned concert at any real or imagined slight. Even now, after the reasonably well relayed shock of what happened in Gaza, and continues to this day, these people hang tenaciously to their blinkered views, and act accordingly.
As for Obama, his whole entourage of Israel backers, his knowledge of where the power lies, must enforce adherence to the Zionist line, even as he tries, perhaps desperately, to make some difference. He knows that the War between Islam and the West (read mainly USA) will continue as long as the Palestinians are treated so abominably by the israelis. Osama bin Laden, (and others), as long as he is able, will use this as a rallying point for the Jihad against israel and it’s backers, in particular, the USA!
The continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the wanton killing of unarmed civilians, men women and children, by ‘accident’, by the US forces and those allied with them, will also serve.
i am not sure where Obama can possibly go! Dazza.
oh ohhhh, the regular looneys are out it full force again!
Good article - and a fitting description of pro-Zionist Western behaviour at the UN Anti-racism Forum as a "circus" and "charade".
Denial or minimization of the Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million dead, 1 in 6 from deprivation) is a crime in a number of European countries and in Austria punishable by 10 years in prison.
Zionist-beholden Western denial of the ongoing Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide (post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths 0.2 million, 2.3 million and 3-7 million, respectively, and refugees totalling 7 million, 6 million and 4 million, respectively, and Genocides as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention: http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html ) is equally repugnant.
Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention states: "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group ".
It is notable that many of the racist European boycotters and walk-outs from the UN Anti-racism Forum - notably the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands, Poland and Apartheid Israel - have been variously involved in these genocides and holocausts and in holocaust denial i.e. they are guilty of racist holocaust commission and holocaust denial.
One prays that Iran (population about 70 million, roughly half children 3/4 women and children) will escape carnage at the hands of these racist psychopaths.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
Polya
You pray that Iran escapes carnage, huh? You would be better off praying for the good people of Iran who continue to suffer from inhumane treatment and human rights abuse by their own leadership. Iran’s greatest threat comes from within.
This comment has been cut short. The remainder was off-topic.
Jewboy, many of us are at a loss for words at the sight of our government spinelessly boycotting the UN Conference on Racism. This does not mean that we love Iran more than Australia! We would simply like to see our government pursuing the ideals of the majority of its constituents, and not those of some small, but highly influential, lobby.
and on what basis do you think that your views (on this matter) represent the majority of australia?
blade - do you really believe that the ahmadinjad is an appropriate speaker at a conference on racism? regardless of your views on israel, surely you can’t think that iran is a good world citizen? i don’t know whether you share the views of rosross, polya and dazza but they would have you believe that israel’s regional neighbours are peace-loving countries, compliant with international law. dazza writes of "blinkered views" but it is he who can’t see past his own prejudice. it is difficult to believe that someone is not an anti-semite when they use terms like the "Jew owned Business lobbies".
i get it that you all despise the west but look who you align your views with - racists and murderers.
israel is not perfect but it was granted it’s territory according to international law. israel did not begin the wars of ‘56, ‘67, ‘73 or ‘81. israel does not attack if unprovoked.
everybody here are experts on persian/farsi translations, military tactics, international law and even whether or not israel has nuclear arms. i wonder how many of the writers here have spent any significant amount of time in the middle east or even spoken with middle-easterners who have moved to australia. these people do not, for the most part, live happy existences in their homelands. this is not due to israel. this is not because they are muslims countries nor because (some of them) are arab countries. it is because it is.
visitors to israel will tell you that israel is a liberal country like most australians are used to - you can be gay, you can speak against the government, you can vote, you can protest. many arab israelis (not all) live wonderful lives in israel and wouldn’t want israel to be a muslim country even if they had the choice. many of these people could live in jordan but wouldn’t leave israel for the world.
people here claim that israelis live on stolen land. i don’t agree with this but so what? israel is a fact. it exists just like australia does. are israelis not entitled to a country too? we can split hairs whether judaism is a religion, a race or a cult…it doesn’t matter…jews have an inherent link to the land currently known as israel. so do the palestinians…everyone understands this. that is why israel has taken steps towards giving away land in concession for peace.
Yes jewboy Israel exists, but it is on stolen land. The world knows it but it seems you just don’t bother to learn any truth.
If you don’t want anyone in Australia to question you here is a tip.
There are 21.5 million Australians. There are only 120,000 Australian people who are adherents to the Jewish cult.
As a firm friend of racism, I agree with jewboy’s seniments - especially when applied to Australia.
Some bleeding hearts claim that Anglos live on stolen land. I don’t agree with this, but so what? That Australia is founded and run by Anglos according to Anglo laws, Anglo traditions and an Anglo political system is a fact. It exists just like Israel does. (The only difference is - and this is where Israel is superior - we don’t have official ethnic designations on our ID’s so the state knows who is who and how they should be treated accordingly.)
Now some people - especially Jews and Muslims - are sometimes shocked and frightened by this supposedly narrow-minded tribalism, but to echo jewboy, is not the great and glorious White race, like the Jewish race, entitled to a country too? We can split hairs over whether the mighty Christian Anglo Creed respesents a religion, a race or a superior civilisation … but it doesn’t matter … Anglos have an inherent link to this land currently known as The Commonwealth of Australia. And (whether I like it or not) despite our ancestors’ best efforts at ethnic cleansing, so do the (remaining) Aboriginals … everyone understands this. That is why the whites of Australia have taken steps towards - as a way of showing both our superior moral nature and that it is ONLY by our grace (and not by some namby-pamby devotion to "universal human rights") that others get what WE decide they deserve - giving away land in concession for peace.
Thankyou jewboy for expressing in such an elegant and paletable way what so many of us racists feel about how nations should be understood and run. (Of course, Jews are not Anglos, so if you are asked to ‘move along’ because you ‘don’t quite fit in’ to a vision of a White State, you’ll naturally understand. After all, you have a Jewish State set up especially for you!)
This comment has been deleted. It was off-topic and added nothing to the debate.
Raffe, It is not a stupid point.
The Americans arm and assist various factions in Iraq and Afghanistan to prop up their puppet governments and continue their occupations.
Israel armed and assisted both Hezbollah and Hamas in their earliest days in order to use them as weapons against those fighting for freedom from occupation.
The Germans would have called those who supported the French Resistance terrorists.
The Iranians are doing nothing more than the Americans, Israelis and countless others have done and continue to do throughout the world…. sadly.
The one HUGE DIFFERENCE is that the Iranians are supporting people in a fight to free themselves from occupation and colonisation (by the US and Israel) and the Israelis and Americans are supporting people who will allow them to maintain occupation and colonisation.
It’s called being an ally. The Iranians are allies of the Palestinians, Lebanese and others and are therefore doing exactly what everyone else does.
I(t does matter that Iran has not attacked anyone else for 100 years while Israel has dropped bombs willynilly on neighbours and slaughtered thousands of people in neibhbouring countries. You may not think it matters but sane people throughout the world do and the majority of people in the world now consider Israel a terrorist state and a rogue nation.
jewboy,
The ‘granting’ of land to Israel was immoral and illegal. The UN had no more right to turn over a slab of Palestine to the Zionist colonists than the Europeans had to divvy up Africa hundreds of years ago or the Brits to occupy India or colonise America, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
Israel is illegal. It’s foundation was as immoral as all other colonisations. Israel can garner legitimacy, on original borders only, like all other colonising nations and that is by admitting to the wrongs inherent in its foundation, saying sorry, making redress, paying compensation and removing all settlements except those which have been built on originally mandated territory.
Israel will not do this of course which is why in a few years there will be no Israel …. there will be one State (like other colonising nations) with equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, sex or creed and because non-Jews are a majority I suspect the first thing they will do is change the name back to what it was…. and is …. Palestine, a nation for all who choose to live there whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian or atheist.
jewboy
I would also add, do some research. Israeli historians and the records of Israel’s military leaders show quite clearly that Israel did ‘start’ the wars or at least ensured that the wars happened because this was a perfect way to steal and colonise more of Palestine. The Zionist plan from the very beginning was to use war to take all of Palestine. The problem however is that in the modern world genocide is not allowed so the Israelis have been hellbent on making life so impossible for Palestinians they will leave …. they won’t of course and ironically one would have thought that Jews amongst others, like the gypsies, would understand that pushing people to the limit does not make them give in …. some do, most don’t… but merely makes them more determined. If Israel had been a benign occupier and not a warmonger, again, ironically, I suspect that a plan by stealth to take and keep all of Palestine might have worked. But instead Israelis have chosen to play bully, thug and torturer and in this way have gauranted Palestinian resistance and the disgust, and therefore lack of support, of the world.
Israel has been hoist on its own petard of arrogance, racism, aggression and I would add, cruelty. You get back what you give out and the Israelis and their supporters have given out so much misery and suffering that there is no doubt about what they will get back.
Anthony’s article is about the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran in the context of a new administration in Washington - it would be good if posters could stay on topic.
Ignore the trolls, they are part of the Zionist infowar effort. Their intention is to disrupt the discussion, not to share ideas and opinions in a sincere attempt to inform or persuade.
Always meakes me laugh reading about the mighty Israeli Defense Force. The IDF hasn’t managed to win anything since 1973, and then only because the US suppleid them with arms as they were rapidly running out. Since then the IDF has only ever shot at folk vastly more poorly armed than themselves, and still accomplished nothing (except a few people got rich selling them kit). It’s nukes that keep Israel from being overrun, and they know it. And it’s merely a matter of time before someone smuggles one into the country and lets it off. They have to make peace before most of the clever Israeli’s leave the country for the US and Europe - about 10-15 years I reckon.
On the actual subject of this article, I tend to agree with Antony that the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran is slight. My feeling is that is is a useful distraction; diverting attention from the actual crisis that is the occupation.
My reasons for doubting that Israel will attack Iran are as follows:
1 - Any attack by Israel will be perceived by public opinion in the region as being an attack by the USA. Retaliation will be directed as much at US interests as at Israel. The consequences for US forces in Iraq could be extreme. The ramifications for ‘western friendly’ regimes in the ME could be dire. Hence, the possible benefit for Israel from an attack - supposedly delaying the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon - would be greatly offset by the strategic costs. It’s a very high risk strategy.
2 - An attack by Israel, especially one causing mass casualties, will create a diabolical public relations problem - potentially dwarfing the challenges of the already difficult marketing environment that Israel currently occupies. Israel will not be able to control access to the story as in Gaza. Global public opinion will be (rightly) disgusted. Israel, and their supporters in the West will find themselves increasingly isolated, while the movement for boycotts, embargoes and diplomatic isolation will grow - more long term costs for a short term fix.
old bill,
good advice and a timely reminder.
Good post as well.I agree with you.
And as the Yanks under GWBush built the most massive Embassy every constructed in Baghdad (for their various ME control and interference forces, read CIA etc. ) and something like five massive air bases in the back-woods of Iraq for forward bases for troops and aircraft to be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where they cause BIG religious problems for the Sheiks, to be based for the LONG TERM, (always one of the major reasons for the Iraq invasion and occupation) it is most unlikely that the Yanks even under Obama are going to approve any blitzkrieg against Iran by israel.
However, I have heard of lots of ‘black’ operations inside Iran by both the israelis and the Yanks. If they can sabotage whatever they can successfully, their main idea, they will have negated any massive conflagration. I am not sure that we would even hear of any large explosions, from either the israelis or the Yanks, (or the Iranians) as the aggressors would want to continue operations for some time to come.
The ‘black forces’ getting caught, however, may well cause some International ruptions, and that is always on the cards. That alone must cause some very sleepless nights in Washington and Tel Aviv, with memories of a previous Iran and Somalia.
But Obama would be under incredible pressure to ‘do something’ for their allies/foreign policy controllers, the israelis, and will take chances, as they always do, short of open warfare. Dazza.
p.s. I did hear that Australia (SAS) had been asked by the Yanks to participate in the ‘black operations’ within Iran, after their successful forays into Iraq before the Invasion, on behalf of the israelis and the USA, supposedly to sabotage any rockets out there in the deserts pointed at israel.
I would hope that Rudd said NO, but you never know. Dazza.
And if anyone had covert operations inside Israel or the US to blow up military facilities there would be outrage. What egregious hypocrisy. It has always been thus. Sad to think so little has changed.
This comment added nothing to the debate as it was off-topic.
This comment has been deleted as it contributed nothing to the debate and made offensive attacks on other posters.
Regarding Old Bill’s reasons for believing that an attack on the run by Israel is unlikely:
This is undercut by the observation that the entire 60 year military occupation and subjugation of the Palestinian people is similarly widely viewed within the Middle East as being due primarily to the USA’s support. This is certainly the view is expressed by radical groups such as Al Qaida. And yet this has not proved to be a sufficient disincentive to the USA or Israel. It is difficult to establish that bombing Iran would in fact be a "very high risk strategy" from the perspective of those doing the bombing given past experience. Further, it presupposes that the "costs" listed by Old Bill are valued in the same way by the USA as Old Bill values them.
Certainly it would create the public relations challenge — as to whether it is accurate to say it would be a "diabolical… problem" is impossible to say ahead of time. I suspect that Old Bill is underestimating the capacity of the Israelis to "spin" such an attack as a defence — especially give the recent perception of the statements by the Iranian President.
EPS
Some of my thinking regarding the potential costs to the USA of an Israeli attack on Iran is informed by the writing of William Lind on the subject (see http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html). This is borne our by a reported comment by a senior Iranian military commander (sorry no attribution) that Iran is not worried by the threat of an Israeli attack since, "…we have 150,000 American hostages in Iraq." Iran has made it very clear that they will treat an attack by Israel as an attack by the USA. Reportedly the Bush administration refused Israel permission for an attack late last year; you can be sure that this was not because of concern for the prospect of Iranian civilian casualties.
Regarding the public relations challenge, Israel would have to fall back on the "threat from weapons of mass destruction" as their pretext for an attack. This particular threat has lost a little credibility of late. It’s made more difficult by the fact that the under the terms of the NPT (of which Israel is not a signatory), Iran is perfectly within their rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful uses. Intrusive inspections by the IAEA have not found ANY evidence to the contrary. Certainly Israel can spin, and they will have plenty of support from a discredited neo-con echo chamber, but I think that they will be largely preaching to the choir. There’s about a billion or so white people in the world, and plenty of them will happy to think ill of the Iranians because of perceptions of their weird president. (Who by the way, under Iranian law has no control or influence over the Iranian nuclear program). However there is a vastly greater number of people who are NOT white, and who have very different perceptions. The opinions of Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East itself matter - even if you, or I, or the Israeli regime don’t like them.
Yes, right again Old Bill. I have thought for quite some time that the American soldiers (occupying forces since the Americans have no intention of leaving their military bases now established in Iraq … until they are thrown out of course as they will be)would be the first target of the Iranians and rightly so. Can America afford to indulge in Israeli paranoia and aggression when the end result is thousands of dead and captured soldiers in Iraq and the utter destruction of their military bases there? I don’t think so.
Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities is the surest way for Israel to restore the image of strength and unpredictability that made it valuable to the United States after 1967 while also striking a blow against one of the main strongholds of Islam’s clerical fascism. Take away its nuclear program and unable to retaliate against Israel through conventional military means, Iran would be shown to be a paper tiger—to the not-so-secret delight of America’s Sunni Arab allies in the Gulf.
The idea of a mass public outcry against Israel in the Muslim world is also a fiction—given the public backing of the Gulf states and Egypt for Israel’s wars against Hezbollah and Hamas. As the only army in the region able to take on Iran and its clients, Israel has effectively become the de facto army of the Sunni Arab states.
Israel’s version of a nuclear grand bargain that brings peace to the Middle East may be messier and more violent than what the Obama administration imagines can be accomplished through sanctions, blandishments, and the invocation of Barack Obama’s magic middle name. But who can really argue with the idea of trading the Iranian nuclear bomb for a Palestinian state? That’s what would happen. Saudi Arabia would be happy. Egypt would be happy. Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates would be happy. Jordan would be happy. Iraq would be happy. Two-thirds of the Lebanese would be happy. The Palestinians would go about building their state, and Israel would buy itself another 40 years as the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East. Iran would not be happy. And neither would most of the people reading this.
I note that one of my earlier comments has been deleted, and replaced with a note stating:
What utter rubbish. Certainly I pulled no punches dealing with Antony (or some of the Holocaust denying others around here), but I posted a lengthy comment which addressed a number of significant errors in his work.
Antony is very lucky someone here believes his feelings need to be protected.
Dear Danlew
The whole note said: This comment has been deleted as it contributed nothing to the debate and made offensive attacks on other posters.
You are welcome to resubmit that part of your "comment which addressed a number of significant errors in his work" providing you observe NM’s policy regarding offensive attacks on other posters.
Irene (at) newmatilda.com
Irene,
Gee. Am I? How very kind of you. That would be fine, if I had kept a copy of it. Silly me didn’t realise I would need to save it someowhere else, thanks to your efforts at deleting in 2 seconds what took me ten minutes to write…
If I had wanted my critique of Antony deleted, I would have simply posted it at Loewenstein’s own blog.
Referring to his article, just one example of Loewenstein’s penchant for hyperbole in the absence of any real evidence, his claim that:
The loudest Jewish voices in Israel and America? Come on Antony, name five.
Instead, he’s cherrypicked a single quote, from a writer in an obscure publication most people would have never heard of. Not exactly Alan Dershowitz…
Antony’s errors are legendary and exceeded only by an arrogance which means he will never respond to his critics, as he regards it as beneath him. Instead, he will just concoct more fantasies about "smear campaigns" as opposed to people very easily pointing out that he is just plain old clueless.
As for Holocaust denying "MaryJ", (a regular on Antony’s own blog, where most people’s comments are censored) she’s now even more famous.
I shall leave it there, in case anyone is too precious and this gets deleted as well…