SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Can the Israelis Pull Off an Attack on Iran?

POLITICS FEBRUARY 28, 2012

Can the Israelis Pull Off an Attack on Iran?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

My posting, “All of Western Civilization Could Soon Be Threatened By a Nuclear Iran,” went up on Friday/Saturday at midnight. I don’t know whether there have ever been as many readers’ comments as there were for this piece. To be sure, some of them were simply stupid and produced by the lame brains who have attached themselves (ongetshepet, my mother would have said onomatopoetically) to my writings. The rest were from intelligent TNR readers who seem to grasp the technological issues, understand the diplomatic stakes, and have a feel for the historic and moral weight of the matter.

I want to add another one of my thoughts to this ongoing controversy. An article in The New York Times by Scott Shane informed us, on the authority of General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that Iran did not have a bomb yet and may not have it for a long time, whatever time that is. It was clear that Dempsey was attempting to rein in the Israelis from assuming that Tehran was well on its way to achieving its goal, a goal—you might recall—that is proclaimed every Wednesday and Thursday by President A’jad and his Supreme Leader. The Times is very pleased to add weight to this restraining influence: It has had many news articles, editorials, and columns arguing the point. On Sunday in the “Review,” if you can believe it, it ran a mawkish column arguing that because Jews are a part of Persian history an Israeli attack on Iran would be an attack on Jewish history, too. The one moral of all the Times arguments is that since Iran probably doesn’t have the weapon now there is always the chance that it won’t have it. The message to the Jewish state: Play dice with the future of the Jewish people.

Well, I suspect (I suggest) that this is something Israel will ultimately not do. So the question is: Can the Israelis pull an attack off?

The most authoritative accounting of the possibilities, the probabilities, and the certainties is by Jonathan Marcus, diplomatic correspondent of the BBC.

After reading this analysis, please write in with your thoughts.

And to the “lame brains”: You know I don’t read you and haven’t read you for years. Still, some of your colleagues enjoy making fun of you. So be my guest.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 82 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

82 comments

Here is the report that Israel is not going to attack Iran anytime soon http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/ Although MP question can the Israelis pull it off? From Jonathan Marcus article , extremely difficult. Unless there is complete help from Saudi Arabia , a possibility , or from the USA that Obama has said no pretty clearly. I respect Rubin . He says no . Israel is not going to attack. Can they pull it off? That remains an open question. Probably yes, but with a lot of help. Has to come from Saudi Arabia, and this is a very real possibility in my opinion. MP and Rubin did not discuss this possibility. Thus it has to remain a maybe.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 2:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hmmm. Not sure why Dr. Peretz invites feedback on "...The most authoritative accounting of the possibilities, the probabilities, and the certainties is by Jonathan Marcus, diplomatic correspondent of the BBC..." because J Marcus mostly rehashes the conventional wisdom of how a pre-emptive military strike looks, but does not even include all of the known knowns for a conventional wisdom plan. E.g., would Israel be able to refuel at bases in Azerbaijan? I expect anyone who is writing for the BBC dare not mention the complexities of the Israel-Azerbaijan relationship. I wonder who is doing the actual construction design and work of all these buried and hardened Iranian facilities. And, still waiting for the pundito-analysts to at least factor in the offshore gas in the Eastern Med. Peretz should be less cryptic in weighing the effect, on his reputation, of hundreds of ad hominem attacks between commenters. The New Republic.com sets a bad example for allowing online bullies to thrive.

- K2K

February 28, 2012 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's deja vu all over again. The same speculation about Israeli capabilities and capacity to inflict damage on the Iranians by those who know about it as much as I do. The main objection to the attack seem to be that it will damage the Iranian program for "few years only" and that it might generate harsh Iranian response, including, uniting the Iranian people behind the ayatollahs. The fact that attack will damage the Iranian program for "few years at the most" reminds me of the old Yidish story of Hershale and the donkey. So, it will be for few years at the most. Who knows what can happen in few years? The regime may fall, there might be a new administration in Washington, there might be a new realignment of forces in the ME, peace with the Palis, real elections in Russia, economic bubble burst in Turkey and China, whatever. Yes, Iran might lash out. It might order it's proxies, Hizballah and Hamas to attack Israel and Israeli an American targets over the world. However, Hizballah might think twice, now that it's main patron Syria is busy murdering it's own citizens and Iran will not be capable of supplying them with material. Furthermore, Iranian Kurdish and other rebels might take the opportunity to start armed insurrection against the Iranian state. Further, as I have pointed out on another blog, the sanctions and boycott of Iran are not without a cost either. Historically, it has been shown that the sanctions did not weaken Iranian resolve to develop a nuclear weapon. If push comes to shove, the Iranians might respond to sanctions in the same way they will respond to an attack, by closing the straits of Hormuz, by using proxies to attack Israeli and Western targets and by attacking Israel with missiles. So if the goal is not to piss off the ayatollahs, the sanctions might not be the right approach either. I strongly believe that anybody who thinks that sanctions will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is deluding him/herself. Particularly now, after threats, arm twisting and pressure, the Iranians are convinced that the only way for their regime to survive is by going nuclear. I don't know what the Israeli planners have in mind, but I am convinced that they have few tricks in the their arsenal that we don't even dream about. The time for "tough sanctions" was five or six years ago, it's seems too little, too late today.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 28, 2012 at 7:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K Well put as always. But I believe that in case Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, highly unlikely as put by Rubin in his report , Saudi Arabia will fully cooperate with Israel. Also I agree with the laxity of this site unique among sites. However MP was gloating about it. He was very proud of the most ever comments in his previous column. I am guilty of using obscenities and degrading opponents and fools. I will try to control my anger, but these are only promises. I have been ignoring turret syndrome arnon1, and the pig paid Palestinian ( Iranian). But roi and nova 1, pay attention to these creeps. It is all fun, though.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 7:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover Sanctions did not work with Sadam, North Korea , Cuba/Castro, Spain/Franco, Bosnia Milokovich, Hamas/Gaza. There will be no war with Iran, unless Iran goes mad and viceversa. However the alliance Israel/Saudi Arabia will do it. And to quote Yogi Berra , it won't be over until it is over. .

- JAIMECHUCH

February 28, 2012 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I posted this over at the Herf one as well so sorry for the repeat but who knows who will read that thread: Does Prof. Herf have access to secret, vital intelligence as to the status of the Iranian bomb? Or is he going to quote unnamed, anonymous sources, show us pictures of ice cream parlors and claim they are enrichment facilities. Did he learn nothing from Iraq and the WMD debacle? Khameni is claiming it has no intention of building a bomb. If they did build a prototype they would have to test fire one. That would be all the evidence the world needs that Iran has been lying and therefore the US (and Israel) would then have a legitimate reason to act. And don't give me any bullshit about there have a bomb would be a deterrent. Deterrent against our stealth bombers? Against targeted strikes against their leadership? But where is the evidence we are anywhere near this? I have been hearing that Iran is a year or two away from having a bomb for 10 years now. The Iranian economy is in meltdown and demographics are working against the leadership as they have nowhere enough jobs to provide for the millions of young. Eventually Iran is going to have to back the hell down or face revolution. They might still do nuclear research and even build a prototype, I don't see them test firing it. I am a hawk. I supported the war in Libya, I even supported the Iraq war (believe it or not I think it was only in the execution that we so screwed it up) It seems to me the best option is to tell Iran if you test fire a nuke, be prepared for Israel to rain some fire on your ass. We will then be dragged into it, willingly or not, and you saw what happened to Gadhafi, Hussein, Bin Laden. You can be damn sure the Chinese and Russians would accept this and will pressure Iran not to bring the whole house down on the world economy. I don't give a rats ass if Iran continues research. And if the Iranians are that crazy, at least we better be 100% sure that they have the potential to make a working bomb. And a working bomb ain't easy. North Korea's test bombs were practically duds as far as nukes go. And NK has only done a couple because building a nuclear bomb is effing hard Remember in WW2 the US only had 2 bombs. If Japan did not surrender after Nagasaki we would have had to have a ground invasion (or a long blockade while we built more) The American people need an overwhelming reason to plunge the region into a broad war. If we had irrefutable evidence that Iran had the bomb, I would support the war 100% Until then wait.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nakover "...I don't know what the Israeli planners have in mind, but I am convinced that they have few tricks in the their arsenal that we don't even dream about...." I totally agree - although I may have a more informed imagination from watching "NCIS" :) In the previous thread, I jokingly suggested a bio-weapon that would give only Persians in Iran a really nasty cold. Then I remembered there was an NCIS plot where a secret Pentagon lab was working on exactly that - finding a way to map ethnic-DNA in order to micro-target bio-virus weapons. In my Miami childhood, after the Cuban missile crisis, I was 10, and correlated the magical family visits to Sears with the idea that maybe we could end this "Cold War" by air dropping the Sears catalogue over every populated place in Russia. The mutual concerns of the Israelis and the Saudis is a very tricky "what if". I imagine Saudi, and Qatari, air force pilots wanting to join in an Iran de-nuking. But, I can never imagine official Saudi policy to ever include Israel because that would mean acknowledging the 'Zionist hegemon' - a truly disruptive message for the world of Sunni Islam. So, I still bet on all sorts of covert alliances with Kurds, Azeris, and Baluchis. In fact, I bet the Saudis and Gulf States would be more inclined to want to take credit for de-fanging Shi'a Iran, and would have the Pakistani and Egyptian militaries 100% on board, because only Saudi/Gulf petro-aid is keeping Pakistan and Egypt afloat. It would be interesting to read an all-Sunni attack scenario, but the western pundits and Obama-bots are so Israel-obsessed... Not that this matters to anyone, but I seem to recall Peretz's Passover threads from 2010 setting the record for number of comments, as usual because of roid rage. Or maybe it was Peretz's Waterloo in the American Jewish pundit wars from July, 2010 which hit 406 comments: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/76185/what-you-cant-say-about-islamism-or-matter-about-islam?page=8 Kind of miss then-curmudgeon jdyer. At least he admitted to being proud of his curmudgeon-ness.

- K2K

February 28, 2012 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, my apologies for the typo . My keyboard is old enough to be losing it's letters!

- K2K

February 28, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, that thread was ugly and well nigh pointless. I am open to persuasion for the US or Israel to act, but I want hard evidence. I don't want to face the prospect of a global depression because Marty kind of is sure that Iran is just about to have a nuke in a few years maybe. Marty might be old and rich and so can easily ride the chaos. I have 3 kids under 10. The US dropping bunker busters on hardened facilities nearby schools and Mosques with all the collateral damage (Iranian children are people too) based on conjecture of how close they are is unacceptable to me. The American people were sold a bill of goods in 2003 in Iraq. We deserve irrefutable proof.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, and we were all promised that US troops would be out of Iraq in months and that a post Saddam regime would spark a democratic revolution throughout the middle east. Iran is not Libya (a successful war on the cheap), hell even Libya as successful as that was is not the Libya I hoped would come about. The sanctions are having a serious effect on Iran, building a nuke is enormously expensive. The green revolt a few years back showed how tenuous their hold on power is. I am not advocating that nothing be done ever. But this will affect my life and that of my children. I don't want to go into any damn war as Mary Chestnut said: “Woe to those who began this war if they were not in bitter earnest.”

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

by the way k2k, I think the record number of posts had to do with the article about Marines running over dogs in Iraq. I can't remember the soldier writer who wrote the articles anonymously but they did create a huge stink.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder what Peretz saw in the BBC article? It listed lots of weapons systems, constructed a fictional scenario and concluded that "even if successful" the operation would only delay the building of a bomb. Is this news? Another pointless thread.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Props to Blackton, who is 100% on this one. Not a damn thing I can write that he didn't cover in his posts. Well spoken.

- Tristan

February 28, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it possible that Iran's nukes are a Maginot Line? Very expensive to build and defend? Will the Israelis and other opponents find creative ways to outflank it in 21st century fashion?

- amidut

February 28, 2012 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@malahat: "It's the last option, not the first, or second, or even nth-1" We've disagreed on specific points, you and I, but I think that sums up where we (and Blackton and many others) come together. Soooo.... what's left is a realistic assessment of all those other options; have they succeeded? Are they likely to succeed in the future? Is there something we can do, short of war, that we haven't implemented or perhaps haven't even considered yet? To your analogy with Nazi Germany, I can only say yes that's a good analogy, PROVIDED you're trying to illustrate the "if only we'd acted quicker" lesson of military history. Problem uis, you know as well as I do there are a bunch of other historical analogies that play in the opposite direction. The pentagon brass wanted Kennedy to invade Cuba top solve the missile crisis, MacArthur wanted to nuke China when they came to the aid of North Korea. Yes, it would have been better for all had Hitler's Germany been strangled in its crib. But in those and many other situations, the great lesson of history was "thank god cooler heads prevailed". Which will Iran be, I wonder? Keep posting, malahat, we may not always agree but I genuinely enjoy reading what you have to say.

- Tristan

February 28, 2012 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a fan of William James' essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” Although the problem of concussions and other injuries is lamentable, even so, NFL football games may be an improvement over World War I trench warfare. By the same token, TNR and other Internet flame wars are probably an improvement over fighting duels. http://www.cracked.com/article_19709_the-5-most-insane-duels-ever-fought.html. The problem of translation would be formidable, even with advances in computing power and artificial intelligence, but I would like to see TNR's forums expanded to make it possible for Arab, Iranian, and Israeli citizens to take part in these discussions. With insults, abuse, and expressions of contempt flying back and forth, perhaps these citizens of these countries would be a little too busy "doing the dozens on each other" to shoot and blow each other up as much in real life as they now do. And the variety and imagination as far as invective would, I am sure, take a great leap forward.

- skahn

February 28, 2012 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In his last post, Peretz challenged people to to try "to make a hash of" the op Ed he linked to by John Bolton, whom he presumed many would dismiss because we count huma bad man. I read the op ed, not to take up the challenge, but just to read it. In it, Bolton, who seems very informed about these matters, said explicitly that U.S. intelligence on Iran generally and its program specifically is notoriously bad. And he said generally that there is a great deal unknown about Iran. He then concluded, quite glibly and presumptuously I thought given his concession to our general ignorance about Iran, that we'd be better off with an Isaeli attack than without one. I am not very leaned in these matters concerning the state of Iran's program and its potency. But my recurrent question for those who know better than I is why isn't the threat of Israeli retaliation against an Irani attack a sufficient deterrent? For any calculation of the costs and benefits of an Israeli pre emotive strike must include unthinkable loss of Israeli life and civic life by an Irani reprisal. The Israeli deciders have a terrible decision on their hands.

- basman

February 28, 2012 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: You and I might never get the evidence that you will find sufficient. It is obvious that it would be better if Iranians declared throughout the media that they are working on a nuclear weapon, but this is not going to happen. And therefore some doubt is unavoidable. I, and obviously many others including most decision makers and heads of states in US and Europe believe that the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapon. Is there is a possibility that all they searching for is a better recipe for an egg salad? Yes. Is it probable? No. Iranian economy is in tatters for a long while and it still did not deterred them from pursuing the nuclear option. In addition, US can wait, Israel has no such option. It is a small country, with no land mass surrounded on all sides by, let me put it mildly, not friends. It cannot be defeated even once, because then it will seize to exist. I agree, there were promises, there were screw ups of biblical proportions but if your reasoning is that if US was wrong in Iraq so no action is ever justified, that will cause great damage to world peace and security. I agree that working bomb is difficult to build, produce and deliver, especially in secret, but Israel did it, and Pakistan did it, and India did it and N. Korea did it. All in secret, all through clandestine means and the services of all the world powers knew suspected nothing. I think by now most decision makers are of the opinion that sanctions and international pressure is not going to have any effect. They might have worked 5 years ago but at that time everybody was "talking" to the Iranians. I also don't think that sanctions are cost free. I think that they might encourage the Iranians to do exactly what we are trying to avoid at all cost, terror war, proxies war, closing of the straits. And to follow your scenario to inform the Iranians that if they detonate the bomb than...etc. etc. etc. Do you think that if and when this happens there will be more stomach for action? You don't think that most of the people will say, well, they already have a bomb but they didn't use it yet. Do we want to destroy the Iranian people now. Let's wait until they threaten somebody....blackton, the same arguments are going to be used as are used now. The only thing I am hoping for now is that there is some other method short of all out attack that might prevent this calamity from happening but even in the event there is, do you think the ayatollahs will be happy? Israel preempted the Arab armies in 1967. I was one of the participants in this conflict. I sat for a month in the sands of Halutza waiting reading papers and listening to the radio about LBJ threatening Israel and Gromiko and De Gaull. The threats from Europe and US against Israel trying a preemptive strike were deafening. On the 5th of June Israel took action, as it should have and survived. That's all there is to it.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 28, 2012 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What Blackton said, with 5 exclamation points! Personally, I think potential is there for one or both Iran and Israel to act precipitately and irrationally, but I don't think it is likely either will. Existential threat—both Israelis and Iran's current leaders—exists for both. That would argue against conflict. But the vast majority of wars do not start at all rationally. Israel and Iran would best step back not one but two, three or more paces. They are free to make contingency plans and of course should. But to say war now would be "destabilizing" is an understatement of not inconsiderable proportions. Any way you make it up would strike a mortal blow to the world's economies. It would be a global disaster under any circumstances. Pray it doesn't happen, I certainly do!!!

- Tgossard

February 28, 2012 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I add one exclamation point to Tgossard's 5 exclamation endorsement of Blackton's comment.

- skahn

February 28, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, you make a good point, which is why I'm deeply concerned, if not worried. It shouldn't be discounted that we are living in another millennialist time. Millennialist fervor and fantasy are an X-factor that should not be overlooked. All the rationality in the world at such times can be overwhelmed, so that one instant things are stable, the next an unexpected "accident" can ignite a catastrophe. We rationalists (well, I should say "you rationalists" because I am in certain domains of mind and emotion an irrational person. I get overstimulated and my judgement careers at times which I regret. Still, I think misjudgment and irrationality are too cheaply obtained during times like this one.

- Tgossard

February 28, 2012 at 4:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They might have worked 5 years ago but at that time everybody was 'talking' to the Iranians." I just want to respond to this comment by makeover (I realize he has a lot more to say above). Five years ago, the Europeans were "talking" to the Iranians and it was a waste of time because then the Europeans had nothing to give Iran that they wanted. The U.S. had, and there were some in Teheran who wanted a strategic 'historical deal' on the model of, say, India that would give the U.S. what we wanted (no actual nukes) and give the Iranian regime what they wanted (recognition, and to be free of the American threat of destabilization). But under Bush/Cheney were weren't talking, or rather, we were demanding that the potential result of negotiations be on the table as a pre-requisite for negotiating. It was Barack Obama who tried, in his first months in office, to square that circle. He offered a fresh start, a potential new relationship. But, confronted now with the actual possibility of getting something they had toyed with desiring, the ruling Mullahs got cold feet and rejected the American gambit (which was complicated by the emergence of the street protests that summer). However, Obama's second-order objective was to show the world that it wasn't American blindness or intransigence that was fueling the tensions, but Iran's. This was preparatory to a much more concerted and hands-on campaign at the UN and in Europe to put serious pressure on the Teheran regime, which we see now is putting the screws on Iran's financial structure. OK, lesson over. Just wanted to get that down.

- ironyroad

February 28, 2012 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An interesting article by Jonathan Marcus, which confirms what most informed people already believe about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities -- Israel is capable of inflicting some damage but not nearly enough to make a serious dent in the Iranian program unless lots of things go right and very little goes wrong. And even under the best circumstances, Iran will be right back to where we were today in 3-5 years. It is certainly understandable for Israeli military and political leaders to be eager to set back Iran's program and also for them to fret that they cannot effectively do it without the US assisting in the process. Marty correctly observes that this posture goes against every tenet of Israeli military doctrine and foreign policy, going back to the aftermath of the 1956 Sinai War in which Israel did act in concert with Britain and France against the joint threat of Nasser's Egypt but the result was ultimately unsatisfactory to Israel. My sense -- based only on educated guesses from reading good articles about this issue and not on mawkish stuff in the NYT op-ed pages or, for that matter, on the ramblins on the WSJ op-ed pages -- is that Israel will flinch at attacking Iran if there is a solid US and European commitment to both squeezing Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment in the near term, specific understandings that the US will take proactive steps to undermine Iranian military and diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East until that time and an understanding that the US will militarily respond to certain bright lines involving Iran and Israel in the future, such as moves toward more active missile capability or other evidence that either the nuclear bomb program is re-starting or that uranium enrichment efforts reach a certain critical mass. In the meantime, Israel can both continue the bellicose rhetoric and cross its fingers that sanctions will push Iran to lash out at Israel, the US or America's regional allies, thereby making the war the fault of the Iranians rather than the Israelis or the Americans. Of course, the risk of this strategy is that it depends on very good policy coordination between the Americans and the Israelis -- something that does not yet exist between the Obama and Netenyahu administrations, and may never exist so long as both men occupy their respective positions -- and a lot of luck that things won't inadvertenly spin out of hand.

- wildboy

February 28, 2012 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tgossard "What Blackton said, with 5 exclamation points! Personally, I think potential is there for one or both Iran and Israel to act precipitately and irrationally, but I don't think it is likely either will. Existential threat—both Israelis and Iran's current leaders—exists for both." Sorry Gossard, this is not what Blackton said. He advised caution which is something I agree with. You in turn changed to equate "the existential" threat to Israel with that to Iran. This is absurd. The iranian regime may face an "existential threat," but the Iranian people do not. Not from Israel. the existential threat Israel is total Iran wants to destroy both the country and the Jews who live within it. This has been made clear time and again by the Tehran Mullahs and President as well as other members of his government. You want to sound reasonable, as does, Kahn, but it's reasonable to expose the Jews of Israel to another Holocaust.

- arnon1

February 28, 2012 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, I got what you are saying. I am talking about the American response. Israel will do what it feels is absolutely necessary for their survival, since they have not dropped a ton of bombs on Iran I have a tendency to believe they themselves feel the situation does not warrant it. I think Netanyahu knows the cost of action, and especially Barak. If they can take out Iranian nuclear scientists with impunity, they are likely to know how far along the program is (or we are) And as to what I think is the proper US response, tell the Iranians if you test fire a nuke we and Israel will destroy you (the leadership) and point to what happened to Saddam, Gadhafi, Bin Laden, etc. Khameni's son is one of the richest people in Iran. I just don't see these characters being crazy enough to risk annihilation for nothing. Iran would have the bomb for 10 minutes and then lose everything? This is a better thread by the way. Much better. Real arguments, no insults.

- blackton

February 28, 2012 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think US election-year politics may drive this. The public will not like $5 a gallon gas, which is coming with or without an attack. But they'll tolerate it if there's a war on. So we get to $5 a gallon gas in June; the US sends a signal; Israel attacks; the US, claiming to have its hands tied, goes in to finish the job. Cue months and years of bombardments, and fly zones and so on. What could Republicans do but cheer? Every Iranian or surrogate action would drive votes to Obama, who would be easily re-elected. "Nixon goes to China" all over again

- floydsm8

February 28, 2012 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"No-fly zones", sorry.

- floydsm8

February 28, 2012 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even from an Israeli perspective this is insane. The argument seems to go, "The Iranians are totally irrational and can't be negotiated with nor will deterrence work. Therefore, we (Israel) bomb their nuclear facilities seeing their program back, say, three years." After three years they have their bomb. Where do you think these irrational crazies will use it?"

- dabowers

February 28, 2012 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"After three years they have their bomb. Where do you think these irrational crazies will use it?" Here is an Ashkenazi folktale I once heard on the radio and which I’m recreating from memory. I thought this would be a good way to respond to this question: A poritz is the name by which East European Jews referred to gentile landowners on whose land they resided and upon whose benevolence they depended, for the poritz had the power of life and death over them. So the story goes that one day the poritz found a Jew stealing carrots from his vegetable garden. He determined that the Jew should die, to serve as an example to other hungry Jews not to try to steal the poritz’s carrots. The community’s entreaties on behalf of their poor brother fell on deaf ears. You Jews, said the poritz, will never learn unless we teach you a lesson you cannot forget. So the day of the execution the Jew is brought before the poritz to make a final plea. The poritz was mounted on his favourite horse as the Jew, facing him, was trying to think what could possible dissuade the poritz from carrying out the verdict. And as he watched the poritz fondly caress his horse’s mane, he had an idea. -If you let me live for another year, I can teach your horse to speak, he volunteered. The poritz doubted the Jew’s proposal but he loved his horse so much that he couldn’t bring himself to pass over the possibility that he might actually have a proper conversation with it. And anyway, it was only a postponement, not an annulment of the death sentence. So he agreed to the deal. And let him go. The other Jews, who had come to accompany the convict on his last journey, were dismayed. -What are you doing? How can you teach a horse to speak? -A year, said the now free Jew, is a long time. Anything can happen in a year. I could die. The poritz could die. Or the horse could die.

- noga1

February 28, 2012 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a little off kilter here with Mr. Peretz dreaming up future IDF Air Force Stories of victory. Yes, we know the stories of Egypt & 1977, Hosni Mubarak's first failure as every plane out on the tarmac was destroyed. And the famous Osriak Reactor Raid, low over the mountains to lay Saddam's dream in ruins. Syria's North Korean adventure blown up in the night without a civilian death. And these are important stories, but they were important because they were so unexpected. Daring and creative. Almost metaphors for the Jewish State. And because we love this technology, and it's distance, we forget there are people involved. Kind of what America found out in Iraq. Shock & Awe and empty burning tanks in the desert. That celebration was a little muted, and eventully we pulled the famous dictator out of a hole. After a strange trial he was unexpectedly hung with cellphones recording his chaotic last moments. I was wondering how Israel will pursue this action against Iran and I am beginning to think the plan will be different. A couple of hundered planes in the air for 9 hours will be a little hard to miss, and would be a logisitical battle in itself. I am thinking that Drones, Cruise Missles and a little old fashioned Boots on the Ground will be more likely here. Israel will not be attacking without a pretty good idea there is bomb making going on. These intellegence assets will be prviding more than a target and a rationale. They may use a few plays from the Iranian Playbook, truck bombs, Divisionary attacks and remote control car bombs. A few things point to this low tech/high tech approach. Someone is killing Iranian Nuclear Workers with motorcylces and magnetic bombs, and the new emphasis on Drones by both the US & Israel. Most likely this plan will be similar to the US in Afganistan. Intelligence Agents on the ground calling in strikes with GPS Coordinates and the bombs coming from miles away, drones, cruise missles and high flying F-16's. And drones flying in to analyze the sites afterward, sniffing for nuclear material and confirming damages. More likely Helicopters picking up these Directors afterwards. More like the Bin laden Raid and less like the previous raids.

- CRS9TNR

February 28, 2012 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You don't destroy hardened infrastructure with drones and car bombs.

- floydsm8

February 28, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting how this thread is petering out -- Marty posts something uncharacteristically muted about Israel and Iran over the weekend (except for a fantastical title, which is completely unsupported by the substance of the article), and it gets over 300 comments. Marty then makes another post and explicitly asks readers to comment on it, and it only garners 35 comments.

- wildboy

February 29, 2012 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-A year, said the now free Jew, is a long time. Anything can happen in a year. I could die. The poritz could die. Or the horse could die. Yes, but Noga a country won't die. And Islam will not die. Here is a variation on that tale: A Polish Jewish peasant owes a powerful landowner, a good sum of money. Yankel somehow convinces the landowner to forgive the debt if he, the Jew, can teach a bear how to pray. Faced with the need to produce results, Yankel obtains a cub and hands him a prayer-book with a drop of honey on its cover and on each of the book's pages. The bear wipes up the first drop of honey with its paw and puts it on his tongue. Bright bear that he is, he opens the book and locates and eats the other drops of honey too. The next day, Yankel gives Boo-Boo the same prayer book, this time with a drop of honey only on every other page. The bear, with a murmur of disappointment at each page bearing only words, still manages to service his sweet tooth from the others. The following day the honey is only on random pages. The bear goes through the book, wiping up what drops of sweetness he finds and licking his paw, murmuring all the rest of the time. The Jew is now ready. Presenting the cub to the poritz, he declares the animal synagogue-worthy and hands him the here-and-there-honeyed prayer book. The bear opens it, turns a few pages, murmuring all the while, then stops a minute to lick his finger before resuming the page-turning and murmuring. The poritz is not impressed. "That's not praying," he says sternly. "Come with me," says the Jew, leading the poritz to the local synagogue. Morning services are underway and the Jew opens the door. Lo and behold, the poritz gazes upon an entire congregation of supplicants doing an excellent imitation of the bear. The poritz has no choice but to forgive the debt.

- blackton

February 29, 2012 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether or not Israel has the capability is something few people know. Whether or not attacking Iran is the right choice, we must correctly understand Iran's intentions. A good analysis is here: http://streetsmartpolitics.com/?p=507

- davidb

February 29, 2012 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: "Yes, but Noga a country won't die. And Islam will not die." I think you are wrong blackton. A country can die, particularly a country like Israel. But yes, Islam will probably not die anytime soon. I think you misunderstand the story that Noga quoted. (Interesting, but the story I mentioned about Hershele and the donkey is the same as Noga's) It simply shows that many things might change. I made a small list of them in my previous post.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 29, 2012 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, I don't see Israel dying anytime soon. Iran is a long way away from having that kind of capability. They need accurate missiles, enough nukes to wipe it out, and they would need to mount these without either Israel or the US being aware of it. I think banking on Iran somehow letting themselves be bombed and then not holding a grudge is just not realistic. After all, the whole Iran revolution and the hostage taking was based on Iranian hatred of the US for the early 50's coup. Lets face it, Iran isn't dying. A few bunker busters and setting back their program for a few years (and maybe Pakistan might be so offended they just up and give Iran some nukes) I just don't see it as being worth the risk, especially since we have no idea how long they are away from having a bomb. No, I understood her story. The story I related was just an interesting variation on the same tale, there was no point other than that a premise (a talking animal) can lead to a very different moral.

- blackton

February 29, 2012 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I tend to interpret the story in the same way as Makover. Anything can happen in three years that will change the current configuration.

- noga1

February 29, 2012 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, you are correct. I should have qualified that it would be the regime, not the Iranian people, that would risk "annihilation" (in the political and possibly also physical sense of the word).

- Tgossard

February 29, 2012 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, Tgossard.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Martin Peretz: "I don’t know whether there have ever been as many readers’ comments as there were for this piece. To be sure, some of them were simply stupid and produced by the lame brains who have attached themselves (ongetshepet, my mother would have said onomatopoetically) to my writings." "And to the “lame brains”: You know I don’t read you and haven’t read you for years. Still, some of your colleagues enjoy making fun of you. So be my guest." _________________________ Yes, obviously he's not reading. Peretz didn't actually say anything in this column, no doubt because he is not reading the comments and therefore doesn't know that he is often being ridiculed or answered with contempt, and quite justly so. However, as on this occasion he said nothing, there is no reason. Will it be long? Does he expect his critics to refrain because he feigns insouciance? Peretz is so indifferent to comments that he once, some years ago, threatened to ban from TNR. I said, "Be my guest." I'm still waiting.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Anything can happen in three years that will change the current configuration." Except, apparently, anything that would result in Iran not developing a usable bomb. The story, an ode to keeping options open, can be interpreted so as to suggest diametrically opposite actions. Perhaps the moral is that one cannot decide upon the appropriate strategic response to Iran based on Yiddish fables about horses and asses. I assume that this is not the way in which Obama makes strategic decisions, for which we can all be grateful. Is this what they do in Israel?

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton wrote: "...(and maybe Pakistan might be so offended they just up and give Iran some nukes)..." I just wanted to emphasize that it is highly likely that Pakistan has already promised nukes to the Saudis, and that the Baluchis of Pakistan really do want to re-unite with the Baluchis of Iran into Baluchistan. I see no scenario where Saudi support for the unlikely nation-state of Pakistan is somehow compromised by anything Shi'a Persians can offer to Sunni Pakistan. Perhaps when AQ Khan was proliferating, but not now. Iran has many North Koreans at work in Iran. As to all the public scenarios? Well, sounds like Psy-Ops to me. The real wild card is whether the Israeli-Azerbaijan air field arrangements are real and still strong. There was one publicly printed scenario recently (I am not keeping track of the calendar since January 10, 2012) wherin a full-out Israeli strike could buy TEN years. And, anything can happen in TEN years. Even to the Sunni-Shi'a schism. Am still counting on Teheran being the epicenter of earthquake threat.

- K2K

February 29, 2012 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow - I post a comment to this thread, and Microsoft's IE goes completely ballistic, opening new tab after new tab for this post. Must be a cyber-war going on. Adios!

- K2K

February 29, 2012 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the coda of the article linked by Peretz: Only a small number of air forces in the world, he notes, could mount such an operation. But, Mr Barrie stresses: "Even if successful, it would only delay Iran's nuclear programme." It is a point echoed by IHS Jane's Robert Hewson. "Israel does not have the mass of forces and will not be given the operational freedom [by Iran] required to destroy Iran's nuclear complex," he says. "If you bury enough stuff deep enough, enough of it will survive. Any Israeli attack can only damage and possibly not even slow the Iranian effort. "The consequences of such an attack would be dire and global. It is impossible to see any up-side to this venture." That's a view shared for now by Israel's most important ally. Only a few days ago, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said that an Israeli attack would not be prudent. Such a strike, he said, "would be destabilising and would not achieve their long-term objectives". However Israel's calculus is very different. Knowing all their operational limitations, might they launch such an operation anyway?

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's the coda of the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643 linked by Peretz on another thread: Only a small number of air forces in the world, he notes, could mount such an operation. But, Mr Barrie stresses: "Even if successful, it would only delay Iran's nuclear programme." It is a point echoed by IHS Jane's Robert Hewson. "Israel does not have the mass of forces and will not be given the operational freedom [by Iran] required to destroy Iran's nuclear complex," he says. "If you bury enough stuff deep enough, enough of it will survive. Any Israeli attack can only damage and possibly not even slow the Iranian effort. "The consequences of such an attack would be dire and global. It is impossible to see any up-side to this venture." That's a view shared for now by Israel's most important ally. Only a few days ago, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, said that an Israeli attack would not be prudent. Such a strike, he said, "would be destabilising and would not achieve their long-term objectives". However Israel's calculus is very different. Knowing all their operational limitations, might they launch such an operation anyway?

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oops. Sorry for the double. I am in the wrong spot. Navigational error.

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton wrote: "...(and maybe Pakistan might be so offended they just up and give Iran some nukes)..." I just wanted to emphasize that it is highly likely that Pakistan has already promised nukes to the Saudis, and that the Baluchis of Pakistan really do want to re-unite with the Baluchis of Iran into Baluchistan. I see no scenario where Saudi support for the unlikely nation-state of Pakistan is somehow compromised by anything Shi'a Persians can offer to Sunni Pakistan. Perhaps when AQ Khan was proliferating, but not now. Iran has many North Koreans at work in Iran. As to all the public scenarios? Well, sounds like Psy-Ops to me. The real wild card is whether the Israeli-Azerbaijan air field arrangements are real and still strong. There was one publicly printed scenario recently (I am not keeping track of the calendar since January 10, 2012) wherin a full-out Israeli strike could buy TEN years. And, anything can happen in TEN years. Even to the Sunni-Shi'a schism. Am still counting on Teheran being the epicenter of earthquake threat.

- K2K

February 29, 2012 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: Obviously I don't see Israel dying anytime soon either. The issue is that Iran possession of nuclear weapons is a point of no return. By the way, I agree with you, that banking on Iran somehow letting themselves be bombed and then not holding a grudge is just not realistic. However, do you think that banking on Iran letting themselves to be sanctioned to death and then not holding grudge is realistic? I think that the sanctions will generate the same or similar response as bombing. By the way, check this: "Don’t Underestimate Israel’s Capability to Strike Iran, Insiders Say" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/24/don-t-underestimate-israel-s-capability-to-strike-iran-insiders-say.html

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 29, 2012 at 5:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We all know how Obama makes strategic decisions. Not very well.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 29, 2012 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton: This is the article. For some reason the previous link did not work: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/24/don-t-underestimate-israel-s-capability-to-strike-iran-insiders-say.html Hope this does it.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 29, 2012 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "We all know how Obama makes strategic decisions. Not very well." Do we all know that, makover? You are assuming too much.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 6:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We all know how Obama makes strategic decisions. Not very well." We do? And as opposed to whom? The master strategist George W. Bush?

- ironyroad

February 29, 2012 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And as opposed to whom? The master strategist George W. Bush?" Now, now, Irony. I was going to let him bring it up himself.

- Packard

February 29, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And as opposed to whom?" As opposed to Hannibal.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 9:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes. All the experts on strategic planning are gathered here to vote for Obama as the master strategist that he is. All we need is to look at how well he strategized the I/P conflict and we should all join in the accolades. (Oh, I forgot. Whenever a failure occurs, it's not him, it's them). A teflon president. History will not look kindly on his contribution to civilization. Or maybe it will. Depends who writes it.

- noga1

February 29, 2012 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you type Obama "military strategist" on Google you get a whole bunch of right wing sites attacking Obama as a "lousy military strategists." What these right wingers don't get is that Presidents are not supposed to be military strategists. In a democracy political leaders need to rely on the professional military personnel for advice. A president who thinks himself a military man will only get in the way of the military mission. I thought makover would know that.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Oh yes. All the experts on strategic planning are gathered here to vote for Obama as the master strategist that he is. All we need is to look at how well he strategized the I/P conflict and we should all join in the accolades." That wasn't his job that was Netanyahu's job don't you think? Sharon was a great strategists and yet he put Israel in danger by withdrawing from Gaza without some kind of agreement. He could have taken out the settlers without withdrawing the military. This was quite a blunder and Obama had nothing to do with that.

- arnon1

February 29, 2012 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On Obama and strategy (or is it strategery?): http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state-world-explaining-us-strategy?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120228&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=3390dca73b7146b09e91166b6dee3d4d

- roidubouloi

February 29, 2012 at 11:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has no George Kennan. And, so many of Obama's decisions seem aligned with socio-demographic-micro-polling data tabs. No political courage on any issue. The Obamas had to poll-test whether to plant a vegetable garden when pressed by KGI's "Eat the View" petition, which struck me as clueless political cowardice. Who was going to get upset if the First Family invoked the Victory Gardens of WW2? Now the WH takes full credit for KGI's very positive and well-organized campaign. If that kitchen garden is an example of how Obama thinks "strategically", amazing no one has sailed up the Potomac and occupied DC.

- K2K

March 1, 2012 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The view From Israel published in NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/israels-last-chance-to-strike-iran.html?_r=1&hp

- JAIMECHUCH

March 1, 2012 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I understand that everyone on this post hates Bush (and let's all cross themselves at the mention of this unholy name) immensely and without qualifications, however, he should not be the only standard to compare Obama. By the way, Bush has also presided over the Surge which made the withdrawal of forces from Iraq possible. But other presidents Obama could be compared to would be Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, George Bush 1. Julius Caesar was pretty good too.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 1, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He should not indeed be the only standard to compare Obama to. But any comparison has to be fair, and to leave out the errors and misjudgments in foreign policy and decisions about military intervention made by other presidents, as if Obama was some sort of exceptionally clueless individual, is not historical comparison but merely punditry.

- ironyroad

March 1, 2012 at 2:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: What you are telling me in fact that any comparison is really beyond the scope of this blog unless it involves a profound and deep research into any other president? I just expressed an opinion, you did too. You too criticize George Bush without going into comparisons with all other presidents. Are his strategic decisions look as bad when compared to for exemple Johnson's Vietnam policy and to Carter's Iran and Soviet Union policies? I am not saying that Obama is clueless individual at all. I am saying that his strategic and foreign policy decisions are influence by a certain Arabophile world view and a healthy antipathy to Israel. Again, I base this on what what's available in a wide variety of media and of course based on my own feelings and experiences.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 1, 2012 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JAIME: An excellent article. It reflects my opinion as well. Thanks.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 1, 2012 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "I understand that everyone on this post hates Bush (and let's all cross themselves at the mention of this unholy name) immensely and without qualifications," No one here as far as I know "crosses himself" or herself." You show that you know very little about the people you are talking to bu such comments. And how is Obama a worse military strategist than Sharon who exposed Israel to deadly rockets attacks. (Bush was President when Sharon withdrew from Gaza, btw) Had this happened during Obama's tenure you would never hear the end of it from Makover et comapnie.

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: crossing him or herself is just a saying. Don't take it personally. Really, the only thing I know about people I am talking to is that a many of them, probably a majority are Jews, mostly liberal, Democrats, mostly from Northeast with some sprinkling of South and Midwest. They are mostly well educated, professional or academic and mostly secular. Middle age mostly up to mid sixties and I would say that at least 80% are men. Does this fairly describes this community? Actually, Sharon was not such great strategist. He was a great tactician. He did not have the opportunity to complete the Gaza plan which was supposed to include peace with the PA. Unfortunately Hamas took over and everything collapsed. But arnon, I will pick up tomorrow. It's late and I need to be up early in the morning.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 1, 2012 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Actually, Sharon was not such great strategist. He was a great tactician. He did not have the opportunity to complete the Gaza plan which was supposed to include peace with the PA. Unfortunately Hamas took over and everything collapsed." But makover, why didn't he foresee that Hamas could take over? Others, writers in Israel (I read articles in Haaretz) saw that Hamas winning and election was a strong possibility. And Bush with his neo-cons were also pushing their program of "democratizing" he Middle East. Obama had nothing to do with that. Calling him a bad strategist is ridiculous. He has never claimed to be one, unlike Landon Johnson (whom I liked) who used to inspect maps of Vietnam and select bombing targets. In any case, it was Obama who had Bib Laden killed which isn't bad for a non-strategist.

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"arnon: crossing him or herself is just a saying. Don't take it personally. I didn't take it personally, makover" If you think that "Really, the only thing I know about people I am talking to is that a many of them, probably a majority are Jews, mostly liberal, Democrats, mostly from Northeast with some sprinkling of South and Midwest." It's just a pretty silly image to use. Anyway, I have no idea who the majority of readers or even posters are. Many, are liberal, like myself; some are Jewish like myself, but that doesn't mean that most are. Some poster like Kahn say they come from Jewish backgrounds but claim not to be Jewish or to even know much about it. I take then at their word and so should you.

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I am saying that his strategic and foreign policy decisions are influence[d] by a certain Arabophile world view and a healthy antipathy to Israel." I disagree, makeover, but I think you're one of the people who doesn't lead with his gut in this and I would just say that I hope you come to see things a little differently in the future. For my ten cents' worth, the antipathy is between Obama and Netanyahu, and I'm disinclined to blame either one 100% for it.

- ironyroad

March 1, 2012 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is it that most Presidents since 1948 had no problems with Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Levi Eshkol, even Begin charmed them. Ehud Barak too had no problems. The only tow Israeli PM who had problems were Itzhak Shamir and Netanyahu. Even James ("fuck the Jews") Baker had a strong admiration for Itzhak Rabin. I think the antipathy towards Netanyahu is personal and not based on antisemitism. The guy isn't that easy to get along with.

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/opinion/why-irans-election-is-a-farce.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print "Why Iran’s Election Is a Farce" By ARDESHIR AMIR-ARJOMAND

- arnon1

March 1, 2012 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: I still think that my assessment of the community of posters on this blog is fairly accurate. By the way, nobody at the time, particularly not the Haaretz folks considered Hamas taking over. When it become clear that this might happened,both PA and Israel requested that Bush administration postpone it's election but they refused and went ahead with it creating what is in fact Hamasland. Eisenhower had great problems with Ben Gurion, remember the Suez war? Golda Meir had her problems with Nixon and Eshkol definitely had serious issues with Johnson. The big difference was that both sides did not speak about it publicly and did not air their differences in public. I also think that Netanyahu's image problems result from the fact that he is a member of the Likkud and as such is not a favorite of the media. I never said or imply that the antipathy to Netanyahu is grounded in antisemitism. irony: I think you are right, the antipathy might be mutual, but you cannot deny Obama's past friendships with Ali Abunima, Rashid Khalidi and his pastor and to think that those were without influence is not realistic.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 6:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "arnon: I still think that my assessment of the community of posters on this blog is fairly accurate." If you mean by this blog this particular thread, perahps. But if you mean all the threads at TNR I don't you are right.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"By the way, nobody at the time, particularly not the Haaretz folks considered Hamas taking over." All I can say is that I read articles at the time speculating that it might happen.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Eisenhower had great problems with Ben Gurion, remember the Suez war? Golda Meir had her problems with Nixon and Eshkol definitely had serious issues with Johnson." There are problems even among friends. However, these were not personal.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is America's loss that Benjamin Netanyahu is not eligible to run for the American Presidency. As for George W Bush? His many failures led to Obama's election. Historians will look at the 2000-thru Obama's presidency as the death of America's economy and democracy. Both W and O make Jimmy Carter's one term look good.

- K2K

March 2, 2012 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: Yes, I meant specifically the Peretz's articles and other articles dealing with Israel. I agree with you that problems with other prime minister was not that personal except maybe with Shamir. It's too bad that the antipathy to Netanyahu is so great. He is actually rather talented politician and in general is considered to be a rather good and pragmatic PM. Personally, I have never voted Likud. I was always more to the left.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't have a clue who Ali Abunimah was, but I looked him up. Back in '08 it seems he kept claiming that Obama was always meeting him in Chicago and talking about the Palestinians. Maybe he was, but now he appears to be complaining that Obama is giving American jobs to Israel. http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/obama-uses-weekly-address-to-lobby-for-israel I strongly suspect that Obama had a lot of Jewish connections in Chicago too.

- ironyroad

March 2, 2012 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: Please don't think that I am that excited with the Republican candidates. Definitely not the Savonarola from Pennsylvania.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "arnon: Yes, I meant specifically the Peretz's articles and other articles dealing with Israel. I agree with you that problems with other prime minister was not that personal except maybe with Shamir. It's too bad that the antipathy to Netanyahu is so great. He is actually rather talented politician and in general is considered to be a rather good and pragmatic PM. Personally, I have never voted Likud. I was always more to the left." What really rankles is that Israel in it's hour of need it should have a PM who has alienated Israel's crucial friend.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

| K2K 'It is America's loss that Benjamin Netanyahu is not eligible to run for the American Presidency." Sure he is, he is called Mitt Romney. "As for George W Bush? His many failures led to Obama's election. Historians will look at the 2000-thru Obama's presidency as the death of America's economy and democracy. Both W and O make Jimmy Carter's one term look good." Wishful thinking, Carter was a disaster all the way around an so was G. W. Bush. Obama has nothing to do with Bush.. This isn't the first time you tried to associate Republican failing with Democrats. It's not going to work.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here it is the inferior turret syndrome sufferer arnon, demonizing Netanyauh. It was Obama who went to Cairo to tell the Muslims I am one of yours my middle name is Hussein. It was BHO that shunned and insulted Netanyahu , not the other way around. Now BHO wants to change so he gets reelected. arnon you are inferior you are a schlemiel unable to be promoted to schmuck because of your inferiority . Stop cleaning roi..dent merde.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close