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 Israel Trust the United States When It Comes to Iran?

POLITICS MARCH 2, 2012

Can Israel Trust the United States When It Comes to Iran?

BY YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

When Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Barack Obama on Monday, the main issue will be trust. Obama will ask that Israel trust America’s determination to stop Iran, and trust that when he says all options are on the table he means it. Netanyahu will likely be thinking about May 1967.

In late May 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol dispatched his foreign minister, Abba Eban, to Washington. Egyptian and Syrian troops were pressing on Israel’s borders; Egypt had imposed a naval blockade on the Straits of Tiran, Israel’s shipping route to the east. Eban’s request of President Lyndon Johnson was that America honor its commitment to back military action if Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran. That commitment had been made by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in 1957, to secure Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai desert following the 1956 Suez War. Only a declaration by Johnson that he intended to immediately open the straits to Israeli shipping even at the risk of war—one idea was for the U.S. to lead an international flotilla—could stop a unilateral Israeli strike. Though Johnson was viscerally pro-Israel, he proved unable or unwilling to honor Dulles’ commitment. Preoccupied with Vietnam, Johnson wasn’t ready to support another war, let alone initiate one.

Even if Barack Obama is truly the pro-Israel president his Jewish supporters claim he is, the Johnson precedent tells us that it may not matter. Like Johnson, Obama presides over a nation wary of another military adventure, especially in the Middle East. According to Israeli press reports, Netanyahu intends to ask Obama to state—beyond the vague formulation that all options are on the table—that the U.S. will use military force if Iran is about to go nuclear. But few here expect Obama to make that policy explicit.

What the world remembers of the Six Day War era is Israel’s military victory in June 1967. But these days Israelis are recalling the vulnerability of May 1967, in the weeks that preceded the victory.

To be sure, Israelis understand that, in several crucial ways, today is different from 1967. Then, Israel was entirely on its own in facing the threat on its borders. Today, by contrast, many countries, including in the Arab world, regard a nuclear Iran as a very real threat. In 1967, the war was localized, while this time the consequences of an Israeli preemptive strike will directly affect the international community and especially the United States—and perhaps not only economically. Iranian attacks against American targets—or Israeli difficulty in fighting a multi-front war—could draw America into conflict. And that could risk the stability of the American-Israeli relationship.

The Iranian nuclear threat could force Israel to choose between two of its essential national values. On the one hand, there is the commitment to Jewish self defense. On the other hand, there is the longing to be a respectable member of the international community. Allowing an enemy that constantly threatens Israel’s destruction to acquire the means to do so would negate Zionism’s promise to protect the Jewish people. And launching a preemptive strike without American backing could lead to Israel’s isolation and risk Zionism’s promise of restoring the Jews as a nation among nations.

In this excruciating dilemma, the question of whether Israel can trust the administration to act militarily against Iran becomes all the more crucial. Israeli leaders believe that their window of opportunity in launching a preemptive strike will be closing in the coming months. America, though, with its vastly superior firepower, could retain a military option even after Israel’s lapses. In other words: An Israeli decision not to strike this year will mean that it effectively ceded its self-defense—against a potentially existential threat—to America. When Obama tells Israel to give sanctions time, what he is really saying is: Trust me to stop Iran militarily when you no longer can.

Yet the message from Washington in the last few weeks has only reinforced Israeli suspicions that we are back in May 1967. The spate of administration leaks to the media questioning Israel’s military capability in confronting Iran has undermined Israeli confidence in American resolve. An adminstration serious about stopping Iran to the point of military intervention would convey messages that raise Iran’s anxiety, not Israel’s. By insisting that Israel’s military threat isn’t credible – without at the same time explicitly stating that America’s military threat is—the administration reassures Iran that it has little to fear from military action. The Israelis can’t and the Americans won’t. 

Then there was the comment by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, to the effect that Iran hasn’t yet decided to build a bomb. If Dempsey’s point was to reassure Israel, he managed the opposite. Dempsey reinforced a long-standing Israeli fear that the administration is prepared to live with nuclear ambiguity—that is, a situation in which Iran could quickly assemble a bomb while choosing for the time being not to. According to this scenario, Obama would negotiate an agreement that would allow him to claim he’d stopped Iran while in fact ensuring its nuclear capability. For Israel—and for Arab countries—that outcome would hardly differ from an explicitly nuclear Iran. In either case Tehran could credibly threaten Israel and blackmail the Arab world.

In the last few days, in anticipation of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, Washington’s tone has finally begun to change. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that America’s goal is to prevent Iranian nuclear capability, period. And U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz announced that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have a detailed plan to strike Iranian nuclear sites should that become necessary.

While those statements help ease the tension between Washington and Jerusalem, they don’t go anywhere far enough. Israel needs a public, unambiguous warning from Obama to Iran that, if sanctions fail, America will use military force—that a nuclear Iran is as much a red line for this administration as, say, an Iranian blockade of the Straits of Hormouz. Only that kind of threat has the chance of restoring American credibility—not only for Israel, but also for the Arab world and, not least, for Iran.

Given that Obama is unlikely to make that threat, Israel will hope, at least, for a change in the administration’s signals about an Israeli strike. Iranian leaders need to hear from Obama that Israel has the right to defend itself against a nuclear threat.

And if that message, too, is not forthcoming? Faced with an imminent existential dilemma, Israel will probably opt for preemptive self-defense, even if that means risking its special relationship with America—a different kind of existential threat.

The precedent of the two Israeli attacks against Arab nuclear facilities—in Iraq in 1981 and in Syria in 2007—reinforces Israeli determination to stop Iran, unilaterally if necessary. Israel, after all, prevented a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein and a nuclear-armed Bashar Assad. And it did so without asking America’s permission. Yet the administration can credibly counter that in neither case did Israeli unilateralism threaten to draw America into an armed conflict, as it does now.

In the end the dilemma for both Israel and the U.S. isn’t only strategic but ethical. Israel has a moral responsibility not to surprise its closest friend with an initiative that could drastically affect American well-being. And the U.S. has a moral responsibility not to pressure its closest Middle East ally into forfeiting its right to self-defense against a potentially genocidal enemy.

In better times, the two allies might have been able to navigate these conflicting needs. But in the absence of mutual trust, what could remain are conflicting perceptions of interest.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor for The New Republic and a fellow of the Engaging Israel Project of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerualem. He is completing a book about the Israeli paratroopers who fought in Jerusalem in the Six Day War. 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 238 comments

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

238 comments

Bang, bang, bang. I'm getting pretty sick of hearing the war drums beating in "The New Republic." Leave that garbage to Fox and Friends. If I were in Obama's place, I'd tell Israel, "You do what you're gonna do, but if you attack Iran, the U.S. is not backing you up unless Iranian tanks are rolling into Jerusalem. And no attack you can mount will stop Iran from getting nukes; all you can do is slow them down a couple years. So ask yourself which you prefer: A nuclear Iran next year that's in an uneasy truce with Israel, or a nuclear Iran three years from now that's at war with you? We lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation for decades with the Soviet Union. Welcome to the club."

- Dausuul

March 2, 2012 at 12:24am

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

I wonder whether the American refusal under Obama to make explicit it's willingness to take some kind of pre emptive military action against Iran compared to the Rs, namely Santorum and Romney, being explicitly aggressive about the real possibility of such action will affect Obama's fund raising from Jewish donors, and the usual Democratic Jewish constituency. I don't see how 1967 is an instructive precedent here. Israel has a nuclear arsenal. If attacked it would destroy Iran, as I understand these things. Why wouldn't that retaliatory certainty deterrent any Iraqi attack under the logic of MAD? On this line of reasoning, an Israeli preemptive attack might have the costs of a certain Irani reprisal leading to unthinkable loss of Israeli lives and civic life against the benefit of some measure of preemption that (1) isn't likely to be a permanent ending of Iran's quest; (2) may not be effective even in its own terms; (3) will intensify and justify from an Iranian perspective and from other's perspectives its acquisition of nuclear weapons; and (4) may be unnecessary given Iranian unlikeliness to attack Israel given the already mentioned certainty of a massively devastating Israeli nuclear retaliation. If Iran is a rational actor, then I think this admittedly "severely" amatuerish reckoning makes some sense.

- basman

March 2, 2012 at 1:16am

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

I wonder whether the American refusal under Obama to make explicit its willingness to take some kind of pre emptive military action against Iran compared to the Rs, namely Santorum and Romney, being explicitly aggressive about the real possibility of such action will affect Obama's fund raising from Jewish donors, and dilute the usual Democratic Jewish constituency. On the main point, I don't see how 1967 is an instructive precedent. Israel has a nuclear arsenal. If attacked it would destroy Iran, as I understand these things. Why wouldn't that retaliatory certainty deter any Iraqi attack under the logic of MAD? On this line of reasoning, an Israeli preemptive attack will have the costs of certain Irani reprisal leading to unthinkable loss of Israeli lives and civic life against the arguably lesser benefit of some measure of preemption that (1) isn't likely to be a permanent ending of Iran's nuclear quest; (2) may not be effective even in its own terms; (3) will intensify and justify from an Iranian perspective and from other's perspectives its acquisition of nuclear weapons; and (4) may be unnecessary given Iranian unlikeliness to attack Israel considering the already mentioned certainty of a massively devastating Israeli nuclear retaliation. If Iran is a rational actor, then I think this admittedly "severely" amateurish reckoning makes sense to me.

- basman

March 2, 2012 at 1:18am

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

This is all just too tragic and too sad. I don't think Israeli fears are unjustified but I think the cost of a strike against Iran are gigantic, huge; truly, catastrophic. I am so afraid - I pray that cool heads will prevail, and that hope prevails over fear, and that neither Iran, nor Israel, nor America, nor any other actor starts another war.

- Sophia

March 2, 2012 at 2:32am

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

Basman, I suspect most American Jews are not fooled by the American Talibani and will contribute to Obama and the Democrats, as usual. Maybe Obama has made mistakes in the Middle East. I think he probably has. Still he seems to have been clear about trying to safeguard Israel's security and doesn't seem to underestimate the dangers from Iran or others.

- Sophia

March 2, 2012 at 2:34am

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

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

- JAIMECHUCH

March 2, 2012 at 5:52am

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

"An Israeli decision not to strike this year will mean that it effectively ceded its self-defense—against a potentially existential threat—to America." Halevi turns logic on its head: his argument is that, if America does not cede American foreign and military policy to Israel, Israel is ceding Israeli foreign and military policy to America. America and Israel have a special relationship, but they are not one and the same. If Obama succumbs to the pressure and declares that it's official US policy to join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran if Israel, Israel, decides to strike, America will have ceded to Israel the time and circumstances for attacking Iran; in other words, not just policy, but tactics. Obama might as well appoint Netanyahu head of the US fleet and troops in the middle east. If Halevi is serious, then the appointment will require Senate confirmation, the hearings for which should trigger calls for Obama's impeachment. And they should.

- rayward

March 2, 2012 at 7:44am

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

Israel should not trustbthe US to do other than pursue bits interest and vice versa. Of course, each must taken into account other actors, including each other. Given a long working relationship, they owe each bother candor about how they see their interests, not more. And each can pressure the other to act in the manner it prefers. That's what states do, try to influence each others behavior. I would only wish that as regards Israel that rth

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 8:43am

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

Can Israel trust the Obama administration? No! Israel's leaders must do what is in their own national interest. Why are the other commentators here, supposedly humanitarian liberals, so indifferent to the fate of Israel? Why are they so morally unserious? Are we seeing the Sudetenland 1938 all over again? As for US vulnerabilities from Iranian reprisals, we have the most powerful, most capable military in the world. Obama has had 3 years to prepare for confrontation with the Islamic regime of that country. He has failed to support legitimate opposition to that regime. He has dithered and delayed sanctions. Islamic Iran is today under a great deal of stress. It's economy is serious trouble. There are insurrections and potential insurrections all over the country. Iran is supporting proxy wars in Syria, Israel, Lebanon, and Iraq. It is supporting international terrorism. Now is a propitious time to strike at the heart of the regime, before it has operational nuclear weapons. Obama has failed to credibly explain his Middle East policies. As HaLevi asks, why doesn't Obama support Israel's right to defend itself? I would add, why is Obama so deferential to the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamo-Fascist organization, across North Africa and the Middle East? Why has he ignored the real democrats in the Middle East? Why is he is so trusting of the Islamist Erdogan regime in Turkey?

- amidut

March 2, 2012 at 8:43am

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

"Israel has a nuclear arsenal. If attacked it would destroy Iran, as I understand these things. Why wouldn't that retaliatory certainty deterrent any Iraqi attack under the logic of MAD?" If Israel is attacked, it is finished. A small leakage in Japan's nuclear reactor following the Tsunami instigated an evacuation of population in a radius of 200 km from the site. Israel is too tiny to withstand an attack even by a tiny nuke. If Israel retaliates, which it will, as it I think it has nuclear submarines, it will cause damage to Iran but Iran will not be finished. This is what the ayatollahs are banking on, they declared it more than once. And they are right. A million dead Israel + the rest being sick or maimed for life by the radiation spells an end to Judaism as we know it today. A few millions (if that) dead Iranians do not "finished" or "destroy" Iran's future not would it put a dent in the aspirations of global Islam. The idea that the guiding principle of a policy would be "If attacked it would destroy Iran" is absurd. It means that Israel being nuked is already a possibility one can live with, and a preference for death, total destruction and death for all, to preventing such an apocalyptic end by taking out, early on, the cause for any such denouement. The "international community" may have to deal with a few years of discomfort due to high oil prices but at least more people will continue to live. For Israelis it is a zero-sum issue. The answer lies with Obama. Is he going to do the right thing, or the self-interested thing? Is he OK with the price that will be paid in order to keep his people comfortably warm in winter?

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 8:57am

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

Time to change the mythical storyline that this is solely about Israel. Perhaps Obama should tell the House of Saud to end their illegal occupation of Mecca and Medina, return both to the Hashemite Sharif who is currently the King of Jordan. Then Obama can appoint a special envoy or team of envoys to jumpstart negotiations to finally end the Sunni-Shi'a civil war that has been festering for fourteen hundred years. basman: let me know when Ronald Lauder returns your phone call about where all the "Jew-money" is going in the 2012 USA election cycle. Keep your eye out for the White House Passover seder guest list :) Definitely looks like NY Rep. Gary Ackerman is NOT invited.

- K2K

March 2, 2012 at 9:07am

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

"Why are the other commentators here, supposedly humanitarian liberals, so indifferent to the fate of Israel? " There has been an on going campaign by the Far Left, and more recently by the more "conservative" Left to promote this kind of indifference to Israel's plight. It has blamed Israel for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East, by ways of relentless slander, delegitimization, demonization. Obama led the campaign when he decided to curry favour with the Muslims at the same time as he launched a raucous public tantrum at Israel for allowing the building of apartments in Jerusalem. The movements that are busy working for the destruction of Israel got quite a boost and legitimation from such openly expressed animus. The result is a growing indifference to the fate of Israeli Jews among the International community. Of course, the UN is doing its most scrupulous best to maintain this level of hatred towards Israel. Why would you think, Amidut, that American "liberals" are immune? Look at the good demonizing work roi and his band of merrimen are doing around here for a clue to the answer of your question. Cultivating indifference is one of the stages that prepare people to regard the prospective annihilation of a nation with equanimity. In order to want to prevent such a fate, people need to feel a certain affection and respect for a nation beyond that of mere interest. When these bonds of affections and respect are being deliberately undone, filament by filament, by tales of terrible deeds, perfidy, dark intentions and atrocious crimes, people ask themselves: why should we bother if someone wants to wipe out this pestilence, this virus, this carbuncle on the face of humanity?

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 9:15am

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

Can _THE UNITED STATES_ Trust _ISRAEL_ When It Comes to Iran? There, fixed that for you.

- ATLeft

March 2, 2012 at 9:44am

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

Noga, I'm troubled by the wimpiness especially of many Jewish "liberals". Jewish community seems to mean nothing anymore. Weasely Roid and others invent all kinds of pretexts for avoiding real commitment. If it isn't some Central Park-sized piece of real estate in Judea and Samaria, it is something else. How much does he calculate before helping a member of his family? I share the concern of most American liberals about the loony Republican Party, which is now in the hands of plutocrats and theocrats trying to destroy the American national state. Vide Grover Norquist, a conservative Islamist fellow traveler and anti-tax activist who says he wants to drown the federal government in the bathtub. But that doesn't mean I have to support the Obama administration's illogical and dangerous Middle East policies. As David Ben Gurion said in September 1939 that the Zionists "would fight the war as if there was no White Paper and fight the White Paper [that sharply limited Jewish immigration to British Palestine] as if there was no war." I am opposed to both loony conservatism and Obama's appeasement of the Islamist jihadis.

- amidut

March 2, 2012 at 9:54am

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

ATLeft -- Bingo. Allies don't spy on each other. There's no Jonathan Pollard sitting in an Israeli jail.

- Mikelawyr22

March 2, 2012 at 9:56am

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

I'm curious, for those incensed with the president because he won't rush to attack Iran, and infuriated with those of us who also urge caution: 1) what is your opinion regarding the overwhelming majority of Israelis who do not wish to see an attack on Iran in the near future, with or without America's help? (I'll try to find the link to the recent poll). 2) is it POSSIBLE for someone to believe an attack on Iran is not yet warranted (though one certainly may be) but still be very concerned about the plight of Israel and the threat to her people?

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 10:17am

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

"I am opposed to both loony conservatism and Obama's appeasement of the Islamist jihadis." From what I can see, this basically ironic position would be untenable for the likes of roi. He needs you to trust Obama, to understand that Obama's policies are the best and only ones. Any alternative is tantamount to treason and perfidy. Roi is not a liberal; he is like O'Brien in 1984: "O'Brien: The Law of Gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens. Winston Smith: I love you. "

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 10:27am

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

My guess is that Obama could safely state the the US would not allow the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon. Of course, that's not enough for the Israelis as Halevi points out in this article -- they want that sort of a commitment against Iran's ability to build a weapon, such as the sufficient enrichment of uranium to bomb grade fuel and the ability to weaponize it onto Iran's existing ballistic missiles. I think that Obama isn't comfortable making that sort of commitment for a few reasons. For one, it's possible if not likely that Iran can achieve sufficiently enriched uranium capacity within the next 12 months, and Obama isn't that interested in starting a war before his re-election (sorry Noga, that's how things generally work in democratic countries that have regularly scheduled elections), and while American troops are in Afghanistan in large numbers. For another, it's likely that a military strike would not set back Iran's program for that long and would then give Iran the incentive to pursue its nuclear weapons program in a more dispersed manner, and possibly with the more active assistance of the Russians, North Koreans or others who have either been alienated by America's unilateral bombing action or are simply out to make some money with their nuclear know-how. Finally, Obama may see an opening for a deal with Iran after sanctions have really bitten into its economy and its regional influence has been reduced accordingly -- a deal whereby Iran agrees to full, unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment on its soil to low levels in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and perhaps some other diplomatic/economic arrangements. But it should be evident to Obama and his team that the Israelis need some reassurance that the US won't allow Iran to reach a point where it is relatively immune from attack and can negotiate from a position of strength on the nuclear program, and to maintain the pressure of an attack until Iran agrees to an acceptable deal. My suggestion would be for the US to explicitly state that it will explore the sale of more advanced military technology to Israel -- including the latest bunker-buster bombs, refueling aircraft, maybe even cruise missiles -- for the sale to be completed within the next few months. The Israelis won't be expected to agree in public and can continue to make threatening noises about zones of immunity and how they are getting ready to act at any moment. But the US will be given time to see how sanctions play out and Obama will be given time to get re-elected without being drawn into an unpredictable war before November. BTW, can I just point out two recent events that may have some rather serendipitous consequences with the US-Iranian standoff in the Middle East? First, the recently announced desire by North Korea to suspend uraninum enrichment and nuclear testing (with full inspections) in exchange for economic aid has nothing to do with the Middle East, but will probably preclude North Korean sales of nuclear or missile technology to Iran. That's a very valuable thing at the moment, though a unilateral US attack on Iran (or an Israeli attack after the US essentially gives them a green light) could cause the North Koreans to start to cheat on their commitments. Second is the much-maligned US attempt to make nice with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Islamist parties elsewhere across the post-Arab Spring world. Yes, these parties are anti-Semitic, anti-Western and opposed to any normalization of relations with Israel, right down to making noises in Egypt about abandoning the Camp David treaty (probably a bluff, but who knows)? On the other hand, these parties are and have always been anti-Shia and anti-Iranian. With that in mind, they may be helpful in reducing Iranian influence on Israel's borders by drawing Hamas away from Iranian patronage and helping fuel the revolt against Assad in Syria. At this point, the US can accept the risk of Islamist-dominated governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey or elsewhere if they counteract Iranian influence in those places. That's another reason why the US doesn't want to rush into war now -- an Israeli assault on Iran this summer practically guarantees renewed rocket assaults from Gaza and Lebanon and possibly full-scale reprises of Operation Cast Lead and the Second Lebanon War. On the other hand, a year or 18 months from now Assad's government in Syria may have collapsed, Hezbollah could be isolated without the Iranian lifeline and Hamas could be weaned from Iranian influence to Egyptian tutelage. All those development would make effective retaliation against Israel in the event of an attack on Iran less likely, or at least less effective. Something to think about for those whose daily regimen includes wondering aloud why Obama won't praise Israel and criticize Islamists more than he does.

- wildboy

March 2, 2012 at 10:28am

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

ATleft is right, regardless of the rest of the content of the article. This is an American magazine devoted primarily to America's best interests. That title is inappropriate, at most I can see is asking how much each side can trust each other.

- blackton

March 2, 2012 at 10:31am

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

Pretty sure I saw a poll very recently showing that most Israelis don't favor an Israeli attack on Iran and if one does occur, prefer it to happen with US approval or assistance. Only a small minority favor an Israeli attack on Iran no matter what. Meanwhile, far from regarding Barack Obama as an Hamas secret agent, a bare plurality favors him over Mitt Romney for prez. It is important to keep in mind that when reading TNR or Commentary or National Review or anything of that kind, you're not getting THE view from Israel, you're getting A view from Israel. You're getting the view of a particular segment of the Israeli public, one that tends to be more right-wing and pro-war than the population as a whole. AIPAC and Sheldon Adelson ensure this is the only view from Israel most Americans ever see or hear, but if you do a bit of digging, you find Israel is not of one mind on this subject any more than it is of one mind on any other subject. But you're not supposed to know that. Even suspecting it might be so is probably enough to make you an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.

- DC Spence

March 2, 2012 at 10:33am

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

"I'm curious, for those incensed with the president because he won't rush to attack Iran," You are deliberately misstating Halevi's position, Tristan. No one here advocates a "rush too attack Iran". What is expressed is puzzlement why Obama and his advisors are going out of their way to re-assure Iran that there will be no military option: "Yet the message from Washington in the last few weeks has only reinforced Israeli suspicions that we are back in May 1967. The spate of administration leaks to the media questioning Israel’s military capability in confronting Iran has undermined Israeli confidence in American resolve. An adminstration serious about stopping Iran to the point of military intervention would convey messages that raise Iran’s anxiety, not Israel’s. By insisting that Israel’s military threat isn’t credible – without at the same time explicitly stating that America’s military threat is—the administration reassures Iran that it has little to fear from military action. The Israelis can’t and the Americans won’t. " The debate about Iran's nukes has been going on for years. Where do you see anything that justifies your "rush to attack"??

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 10:34am

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

"Pretty sure I saw a poll very recently showing that most Israelis don't favor an Israeli attack on Iran and if one does occur, prefer it to happen with US approval or assistance" And what's new or surprising about that? Do you think Israelis like to go to war at the drop of a hat, out of sheer bloody mindedness? What an idiotic argument.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 10:38am

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

"The debate about Iran's nukes has been going on for years." Isn't that the whole point about why Obama may be skeptical with all the "zone of immunity" talk these days? After all, Israelis were claiming five years ago and ten years ago that Iran was going nuclear, there was little time left to act, something had to be done. Nothing was "done" (at least not the kind of "something" the Israelis wanted), and here we are in 2012 with no Iranian bomb and no Iranian ability to quickly assemble one. Why should the Americans now take Israeli assessments at face value, when they didn't before? Oh, I forgot -- because George W. Bush was a True Friend of Israel and Obama is the kushi who learned everything he knows about the Middle East from Rashid Khalidi.

- wildboy

March 2, 2012 at 10:47am

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

"Now is a propitious time to strike at the heart of the regime, before it has operational nuclear weapons" Noga, it's comments like the above that some of us are responding to. It's not like Amidut is the lone hawkish voice in the wilderness, either. Surely you've noticed there are many calling for warfare sooner rather than later, and right now preferrably. And respecfully, I don't think pointing out that a majority of Israelis do not support an attack is "idiotic". I take it on faith that the average Israeli living in Israel not only knows more about the threat to his/her life but has a more heightened interest in the Iranian threat than I, living waaaay out here in CT.

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 10:52am

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

How can any Jew trust anti- Semite Obama? That is the question. Turning this into a long moral inquisitive dilemma going nowhere is a waste of time. Obama is a proven anti- Semite. If he wasn't he would not have cheered his spiritual mentor, Wright for twenty years nor would have he organize for Farrakhan in the Million men march. Remember? Wright and Farrakhan visited Khadafi in Libya! Obama probably was busy in some anti- Semitic project not able to go with them. Obama would probably join an effort to destroy Israel if it was not followed by personal problems for himself. After all when Wright opened his sewage mouth Obama shut the door to "his spiritual mentor" who married him and baptized his children. He had become an impediment to Obama the political Israel. When was the last time you heard Obama saying "My spiritual mentor who gave the title of my book? Obama is trying to make everybody forget these words. We should not. Anti- Semite is not to be trusted with the life of any Jewish child. Israel's security to Obama going to Cairo Egypt to make a speech of friendship to the Muslims defending Israel from nuclear Iran? Are you awake?

- Poupic

March 2, 2012 at 10:57am

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

"Isn't that the whole point about why Obama may be skeptical with all the "zone of immunity" talk these days?" Perhaps if Obama had worked on biting Iran sanctions three years ago there would be less reason to be worried now. _______ "And respecfully, I don't think pointing out that a majority of Israelis do not support an attack is "idiotic". I take it on faith that the average Israeli living in Israel not only knows more about the threat to his/her life but has a more heightened interest in the Iranian threat than I, living waaaay out here in CT." it seems to me you deliberately misunderstand my point. If you ask Israelis whether they support an attack on Iran of course they will answer that they prefer not to. Who is for War? This is why I want to know what kind of poll whatsit quotes here. Israelis in geeral believe Iran is going nuclear and Israel is on the line for liquidation. They would prefer the problem be solved by the International community led by the US. This is how I would interpret that poll. What you shouldn't do is interpret it as if Israelis are not existentially worried about Iran's nukes, because they are.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 11:03am

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

Poupic, stop beating around the bush. Are you going to vote for Obama in November, or not?

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 11:04am

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

@amidut - "Are we seeing the Sudetenland 1938 all over again?" 1. No. 2. Godwin.

- Dausuul

March 2, 2012 at 11:04am

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

I usually ignore whatever Poupic is saying, but just for the record there is zero evidence whatsoever that Obama helped organize, said nice things about or was otherwise involved with the Million Man March. Not even Donald Trump or Joe Arpaio have made that assertion about him. But note that I am saying this just for the record, and not in response to anything Poupic writes, because I'm always aware of the dictum about not arguing in public with a crazy person.

- wildboy

March 2, 2012 at 11:09am

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

"@amidut - "Are we seeing the Sudetenland 1938 all over again?" 1. No. 2. Godwin." Not every historical analogy about Nazi Germany is automatically dismissable as Godwin Law. Amidut should have, however, stated more clearly where he sees the commonalities between the current impasse and the situation around Sudetenland 1938.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 11:09am

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

Amidut with the Sudentenland stuff again. Not that anyone needs reminding here, but you know what the problem was with the Sudetenland? It was that Britain and France took upon themselves to negotiate with Germany over the territory of another country (Czechoslovakia) without allowing the country to participate in those negotiations itself. When they reached their deal with Hitler to cede the Sudentenland to Germany, they instructed the Czechs to agree or reject, in which case they would have to fight the Germans without British and French support. How is that different from Israel, the US and Iran's nuclear bomb? For one, there is no territorial concessions involved in the dispute. For another, no one is requiring Israel to give up anything in exchange for Iran giving up the bomb. If it turns out a US deal with Iran will require Israel to recognize Hamas, give up the West Bank, give up its nuclear weapons or allow an Iranian recruitment office to open on Har Habayit, then we can fire up the Sudetenland talk.

- wildboy

March 2, 2012 at 11:14am

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

If the Israelis are reluctant to attack Iran, it's because they love life. The Jihadis brag about how they love death. When the heck are liberals going to recognize that Islam and Islamism are antithetical to their liberal values. Even more so than the Christian religious right in the United States?

- amidut

March 2, 2012 at 11:15am

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

Noga, I'm not deliberatly doing anything. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the pollsters asked something along the lines of "are you against war in general but in this instance see a need for attack on Iran in the near future", so we have to go with what we have. What we're left with is this: Israelis are worried about Iranian nukes. As they should be. But a majority do not SEEM to believe that there should be a military attack in Iran, either with America's help or without it. Buried in there somewhere I would imagine is either the belief that the chaos an attack would unleash is currently viewed as outweighing the gain of attack, even if that attack were successful; a belief that the attack may not accomplish its stated goals; that the threat itself may not yet be beyond the ability of diplomatic initiatives to counter; or some combination thereof. My point is only that there seem to be those (not necessarily you, Noga) who believe that advocating caution is tantamount to at best apathy for Israel's plight or at worst (hi, Poupic) secretly hoping for her demise. There seems to be no acknowledgement that wars sometimes no not go as planned, hell they sometimes make things much much worse, and maybe we should just wait a bit and see if we can solve this problem by other means... and nothing in that line of thinking makes any of us anti-semite Israel haters.

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 11:23am

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

"When the heck are liberals going to recognize that Islam and Islamism are antithetical to their liberal values." That was Christopher Hitchens' battle for the last 11 years of his life, since 9/11. A few others, genuine liberals, agreed with him.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 11:24am

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

Or you could say, can the U.S. trust Israel not to go off the deep end and start a regional war on the basis of incomplete knowledge, and then insist that the U.S. come to its rescue, just so Netanyahu can appease the right-wing members of his coalition?

- mlottman

March 2, 2012 at 11:29am

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

03/02/2012 - 8:57am EDT | noga1 If Israel can't sufficiently devastate Iran in retaliation to attack then the argument from MAD obviously fails. I'm not aware that it can't and I would be obliged if I could be cited something knowing that comments on the limits of Isaeli retaliatory capacity in these circumstances. For example, I have never understood her nuclear capacity to be limited to launches from subs.  I'm not sure what "the Ayatollahs are banking on" as contrasted with Irani public rhetoric. Iran is ultimately a rational actor or it's not. The argument from MAD depends on an assessment of Irani rationality. But if these two tenets--sufficient retaliatory capacity and ultimate Irani rationality as an international actor, and some, disinterested, think it is, ultimately--then I think the MAD argument is, far from absurd, arguable. In your comment about absurdity you misconceive, I think, f I'm understanding you, the logic of MAD, which is to say mutually assured destruction. That is an absurd logic, though not in the way you mean. The absurdity of the logic, living with "the possibility of being nuked," is of its essence. For myself, I don't foresee  Obama, who is likely to win in November, taking pre emptive action against Iran, whether that the be the right thing or not. And as I have said, I shudder at the gravity of the decisions Israel has to make and will likely have to make not being able to count on America and if the sanctions don't deter Iran. I'm just saying what I think based on what I understand.

- basman

March 2, 2012 at 11:48am

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

It is quite clear that Islamism at least is antithetical to liberal values. It does not at all follow, however, that liberal values should therefore be imposed by force of arms or defended by force of arms, unless it is our own freedom to live according to those values that is under threat. This is the sort of dangerous elision constantly made by the right, that, because something is valuable or threatened, the effective and/or moral response is armed force. The religious wars in Europe didn't end because the Europeans suddenly woke up to the idea of religious tolerance. They got tired of killing each other and invented religious tolerance as a justification for simultaneously maintaining their religious beliefs and not killing each other over them. As I was saying before so rudely interrupted by my i-pad: Israel should not trust the US to do other than pursue bits interest and vice versa. Of course, each must taken into account other actors, including each other. Given a long working relationship, they owe each other candor about how they see their interests, not more. And each can pressure the other to act in the manner it prefers. That's what states do, try to influence each others behavior. I would only wish that, as regards Israel, American policy were not enmeshed with domestic politics and lobbying. Of course, domestic politics is essential to the overall posture of American foreign policy, but I cannot think of another bilateral relationship or multilateral relationship that is the focus of so much domestic political lobbying and pressure. While AIPAC et alia are constantly assuring us of the commonality of American and Israeli interests, its very existence belies the claim. If the interests of the US and Israel were so naturally aligned, there would be no reason for AIPAC. The British don't have a lobby, the EU doesn't have a lobby, NATO doesn't have a lobby. They don't need one. The distortion of American policy that results is, in my opinion, damaging to the United States and Israel. It has enabled Israel to pursue a colonial policy that otherwise likely would have been impossible. Even assuming that that policy has been good for Israel (I believe quite the opposite), it has not been good for the United States. And it is unstable. Eventually, our real interests are going to prevail. Meanwhile, Israel has already become over-extended in this policy by virtue of the subsidy of American power. Israel's own power would not have sufficed. When the power subsidy ends, there will therefore only be more pain and loss than otherwise. noga writes: "If Israel is attacked, it is finished. . . . If Israel retaliates, which it will, as it I think it has nuclear submarines, it will cause damage to Iran but Iran will not be finished." This is incorrect. Israel has sufficient weaponry, notably thermo-nuclear weapons, H-bombs, mounted on SLBMs, to destroy Iran to the last human being and human artifact, and no doubt would. Another poster asks: "Why are the other commentators here, supposedly humanitarian liberals, so indifferent to the fate of Israel?" It hardly follows that anyone, or Americans in general, are indifferent to the fate of Israel because the principal concern of our government is and should be our own fate. We were threatened by annihilation by the Soviet Union for decades. Were we therefore indifferent to our own fate? When Harry Truman refused to bomb the Soviet Union in an effort to maintain our nuclear monopoly, was it because he was indifferent to our fate, or was it because he coolly understood, despite the near-hysteria around him, that making war on the Soviet Union would likely damage our security far more than it helped, not preventing the Soviet Union from both getting the bomb while sealing it in implacable hostility? The question is silly. On the other hand, if we concern ourselves with Israel's fate, that does not at all mean that we must accept whatever claims the government of Benjamin Netanyahu wants to make about what either Israel's security or ours requires. We have a rather large intelligence and military apparatus dedicated to making those judgments on our behalf. While Israel may wish to maintain its nuclear monopoly, it also does not follow that Israel's fate depends on that, any more than ours did, or that the additional risk of losing its monopoly justifies the risks and costs of starting a war with Iran. Certainly not because Netanyahu says so. He can press his case. It is the job of our president to decide a matter of such great importance in our interest. Plainly what Israel wants is to maintain its nuclear monopoly, and at the least cost to itself, which means at greater cost to us. That is quite understandable. Our government, however, has the responsibility to decide what is best for us, having regard for Israel, but not morally or otherwise obligated to do what Israel wants. It is not the 51st state of the Union. What Obama surely should not do is make any commitment to Israel to the use of force. That would be dereliction of his responsibility unless the decision has in fact irrevocably been taken to use force. Even then, we might change our minds and should absolutely retain the freedom to do so. Even as a member of NATO, we committed only to come to the defense of our allies, not to use our military power to pursue their policies. Nor should we have. Strategic and tactical ambiguity are in our interest, for exactly the reasons that nuclear ambiguity has been in Israel's interest. Bellicosity is threatening to other nations and gain bring about the very disaster one seeks to avoid. Freedom of action should be maintained to the greatest extent possible consistent with our own security. Iran is not going to end its nuclear program because we might do so by force. That would be irrational as they would lose it either way. No nation would succumb to such a threat, although they might succumb to a threat of collateral harm as with sanctions. If Israel thinks it must bomb Iran, we should distance ourselves as far away as possible and should provide no assurances that we will then protect Israel from the consequences of our own actions, unless that is we consider it so far in our own interest that we are willing to participate with our own forces.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 11:54am

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

Oy. "from the consequences of its own actions,"

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 11:56am

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

"When the heck are liberals going to recognize that Islam and Islamism are antithetical to their liberal values." I think that, as Jews and Zionists, we should think about our own house before we go about thinking of other people's houses. To that end, you should be asking when the heck are Israelis going to recognize that Islam and Islamism are antithetical to Israel's liberal values, and ban their exercise in Israeli territory? Until Israelis -- who are surely more menaced by Islam and Islamists than any other liberal Westerners -- are ready to take that sort of step, I don't think you ought to keep asking such rhetorical questions about why others are not ready to take such a step.

- wildboy

March 2, 2012 at 12:03pm

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

"Noga, I'm not deliberatly doing anything. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the pollsters asked something along the lines of "are you against war in general but in this instance see a need for attack on Iran in the near future", so we have to go with what we have." Tristan: Do you have any link to the question that was actually asked? It seems that so far both you and I speculate about what the question actually was.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 12:03pm

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

says noga: "Perhaps if Obama had worked on biting Iran sanctions three years ago there would be less reason to be worried now." Obama inherited a dysfunctional policy and posture from the moron Bush, that oh-so-great friend of Israel. Our go it alone cowboy strategy had succeeded in alienating our friends and isolating us diplomatically. He properly understood that any campaign for international sanctions could not go forward until he had persuasively abandoned the childish chest-thumping of Bush and Cheney (god, please save us from the idiots of the right) and demonstrated a sincere willingness to deal without threats. It is that decision that has slowly enabled us to impose increasingly more stringent sanctions. Coming from the hole dug for us by the fanatics of the right, with their insufferable power fantasies, that is quite an achievement.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:04pm

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

Very well said, wildboy. I can only wish I had thought of that response.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:05pm

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

@noga1: No, not all Nazi/Hitler comparisons are automatically invalid. But this is a textbook Godwin situation. There's no resemblance between the Iran standoff and Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland; Amidut just threw in a Nazi reference to imply that anyone who opposes the hawk position is Chamberlain appeasing Hitler. That's exactly the kind of spurious comparison that led to Godwin's Law in the first place. It is also, not coincidentally, the kind of comparison that gets used to sell the public on war when the public seems skeptical.

- Dausuul

March 2, 2012 at 12:12pm

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

Noga: Here you go. I just started digging into it myself, and I'll be curious to hear your take - best regards - T http://sadat.umd.edu/TelhamiIsraelPollFebruary2012%5B1%5D.pdf

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 12:14pm

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

"An administration serious about stopping Iran to the point of military intervention would convey messages that raise Iran’s anxiety, not Israel’s." This is hysterical, meant only to intimidate the US as is the charge of lack of trustworthiness. It is surely the opposite of the truth. Direct threats to Iran, rather than ambiguous statements, will surely not inhibit Iran. They can only confirm to it the necessity of proceeding as far and as fast as possible. The threat and reality of increased sanctions without threat of violence is much more likely to succeed. I am scratching my head and trying to recall a single instance in history in which a country abandoned arming itself because threatened with attack if it did not leave itself vulnerable to attack. If anyone can think of such an instance, please speak up. I must say, in pounding its war drum, TNR serves up one tendentious, poorly thought out article after another. As one is riddled with holes by posters who seem far better informed and wiser than TNR's columnists, we just get another one. TNR. Iraq. TNR. Iraq. Unrepentant hawks, oblivious to the failure of their own advice and its implications. Yes, the two situations are not fully analogous, except that the notion that wars don't usually go as planned and entail great risks ought to have occurred to these people by now. That much is analogous.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:14pm

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

"I am opposed to both loony conservatism and Obama's appeasement of the Islamist jihadis." From what I can see, this basically ironic position would be untenable for the likes of roi. He needs you to trust Obama, to understand that Obama's policies are the best and only ones. Any alternative is tantamount to treason and perfidy. Roi is not a liberal; he is like O'Brien in 1984: ________________________ This is really a load of silliness. I just stated here that I don't think Obama should make commitments to Israel and I don't think such commitments should be trusted. Israel should expect the US to pursue its interests, and vice versa, even if they diverge. There are reasons to criticize Obama, and I don't hesitate to do so. But the criticism of Obama from the right is, more often than not, moronic and, in my opinion, deserves far more attention that the flaws in Obama's policies. Those flaws are trivial compared to the mess we would be in, and have been in in the past, from the policy fantasies of the right. Criticizing the right-wingnut critics, most notably Martin Peretz who is about as wing-nutty as they come while still appearing in print, is not at all the same thing as unvarnished endorsement of Obama. It is simply that the lunacies of the right are vastly more threatening than the errors of Obama.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:27pm

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

Wildboy: Are you saying that Israel should be the guiding light unto the nations in leading the way by banning Islam in its territory? And who is talking about banning anything, anyway? Do you mean that liberals cannot push back against the proliferation of unacceptable ideas and practices from Islam without banning ISLAM?

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 12:27pm

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

Well, malahat, I will give you that, although Qaddafi was also isolated in many other ways at the time and may have thought he was both extremely vulnerable, in the range of NATO airbases, and not nearly far enough along to have a credible threat. But, given the outcome for Qaddafi, who was ultimately Saddamed by the west, do you think that is likely to be repeated? If you were the leadership of Iran, what lessons would you draw from its own relations with the west and a survey of the conduct of the western powers?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:35pm

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

The view from an Israeli centrist whose views likely mirror the concerns of the majority of Israelis. Explicitly signalling Iran that the U.S. is more concerned about an Israel attack, (which the U.S. signals cannot succeed) than about Iranian's unchecked progress toward weaponization is a matter of concern and, indeed, may have made war more, not less, likely. While the U.S. talks about the crippling effect of sanctions on the Iranian economy (although it receives dollars for its oil) the administration refuses to concede that Iran's progress toward developing a nuclear weapon remains unchecked. While liberals blasted the Bushies for trumping facts with ideology, this administration has followed a similar routine. Indeed it delayed imposing sanctions, pushed back and pushed back against Congress. It adamantly refuses for example to acknowledge that Abbas et al have no desire for a two-state solution. The administration likely believes that a vast majority of American Jews support its position. The President has almost a cult-like following among many in the Reform movement who (like Beinart) see him as espousing Jewish values far better than Netanyahu, or those Israelis who do not trust the President.

- thom14

March 2, 2012 at 12:36pm

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

wildboy is quite successfully ridiculing the idea that liberals are indifferent to the anti-liberalism of Islam and Islamism because they don't immediately want to start shooting some Moslems. One might as well argue that Israelis are indifferent to the anti-liberalism of Islam because they haven't banned it on their territory. It is a lampoon, you see. Ironic.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:38pm

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

And what should we make of the cult-like following of Netanyahu, whose government depends on the actual support of Jewish cultists, unlike that of an American government that, at least so long as Republicans are not in contro, is not beholden to the support of religious cultists and extremists?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:41pm

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

The style of argument: You disagree with x right-wing proposition, therefore you are, choose one or more, (a) a socialist, (b) an anti-Semite, (c) hate America, (d) want the US to be in Europe, (e) a cultist, etc.. etc. is what amounts to thought on the right.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 12:43pm

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

I think this is a pretty sound evaluation of what the polls mentioned here mean in the context of Israel's history and realities: http://mideastmatrix.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/why-israeli-public-opinion-doesnt-matter-for-a-strike-on-iran/ "Despite popular perceptions in the West, Israelis are not unhappy with the Netanyahu government. The monthly Peace and Security Index found, in January 2012, that “61% [of Jewish voters] affirm that the government is greatly or moderately contributing to the country’s security situation.” Under these conditions, trust in the government’s ability to fend off perceived security threats increases. Moreover, it’s unlikely an Israeli attack on Iran would include a full-scale ground invasion, or an extended presence in the country: this simply isn’t logistically feasible or politically possible. With a relatively quick strike, even if Iran or Hezbollah respond with attacks on Israel, the public isn’t likely to protest in the short term (they didn’t in 2006). If they do protest, it won’t have an immediate effect on government policy: Again, in all past conflicts where public attitudes turned away from supporting military activity, the government continued its policy for an extended period of time before finally withdrawing from combat. The conclusion is that if the Israeli government considers it necessary to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, the Israeli public (the Jewish sector, at least) will not significantly oppose the decision or the military action."

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 12:54pm

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

Thanks Noga for the view on those polls. Very interesting.

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 1:08pm

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

"wildboy is quite successfully ridiculing the idea that liberals are indifferent to the anti-liberalism of Islam" There is no ridiculing what is patently true. When Salman Rushdie was menaced by an Islamic Fatwah, many liberals turned their wrath on Rushdie for writing a novel that insulted Islam. When the Mohammad cartoons were published and caused a rampage of Islamic destruction and death, many liberal magazines called for "respecting" Islamic principles at the cost of freedom of speech. Consider the attacks on Ayaan Hirsi Ali by Iam Buruma and and Timothy Garton Ash. If anyone is interested, you can read it here: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1146.html "There's no denying that the enemies of freedom come from free societies, from a slice of the enlightened elite who deny the benefits of democratic rights to the rest of humanity, and more specifically to their compatriots, if they're unfortunate enough to belong to another religion or ethnic group. To be convinced of this one need only glance through two recent texts: "Murder in Amsterdam" by the British-Dutch author Ian Buruma on the murder of Theo Van Gogh (1) and the review of this book by English journalist and academic Timothy Garton Ash in the New York Review of Books (2). Buruma's reportage, executed in the Anglo-Saxon style, is fascinating in that it gives voice to all of the protagonists of the drama, the murderer as well as his victim, with apparent impartiality. The author, nevertheless, cannot hide his annoyance at the former Dutch member of parliament of Somali origin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a friend of Van Gogh's and also the subject of death threats. Buruma is embarrassed by her critique of the Koran." This is just a drop in the ocean. In Israel, the Israeli jurist and journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, a social democrat with deep roots in leftist thinking, covers these issues extensively in his column. In today's column he writes: שנים של תקינות פוליטית יצרו את העיוות הגדול. זה לא שכוהני התקינות הפוליטית או חסידי אדוארד סעיד הורידו את מינון הגזענות. להפך. הם הפכו את העולם המוסלמי לסוג של אח מפגר. לעולם המוסלמי מותר לדכא מיעוטים נוצריים, לאסור על פתיחת כנסיות, להוציא להורג מוסלמי שהתנצר, וגם להתבכיין על כך שלא מאפשרים לאיסלאמיסטים לכפות את הערכים שלהם על קהילות מוסלמיות במערב. ובסופו של יום זה העולם החופשי שצריך גם להתנצל ולהתרפס. "Years of political correctness created a great distortion. The priests of Political Correctness and fans of Edward Said did not reduce the quantity of racism and bigotry. On the contrary: They turned the Muslim world into a kind of a retarded brother. The Muslim world is allowed to oppress Christian minorities, to prohibit the building of new churches, to execute a Muslim who converted into Christianity, and whine about how the Islamists are not freely allowed to impose their values on Muslims in the West. And when all is said and done, it is the free world which is called upon to supplicate and apoligize."

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 1:15pm

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

If anyone is interested, you can read it here: http://www.signandsight.com/features/1146.html "There's no denying that the enemies of freedom come from free societies, from a slice of the enlightened elite who deny the benefits of democratic rights to the rest of humanity, and more specifically to their compatriots, if they're unfortunate enough to belong to another religion or ethnic group. To be convinced of this one need only glance through two recent texts: "Murder in Amsterdam" by the British-Dutch author Ian Buruma on the murder of Theo Van Gogh (1) and the review of this book by English journalist and academic Timothy Garton Ash in the New York Review of Books (2). Buruma's reportage, executed in the Anglo-Saxon style, is fascinating in that it gives voice to all of the protagonists of the drama, the murderer as well as his victim, with apparent impartiality. The author, nevertheless, cannot hide his annoyance at the former Dutch member of parliament of Somali origin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a friend of Van Gogh's and also the subject of death threats. Buruma is embarrassed by her critique of the Koran." This is just a drop in the ocean. In Israel, the Israeli jurist and journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, a social democrat with deep roots in leftist thinking, covers these issues extensively in his column. In today's column he writes: שנים של תקינות פוליטית יצרו את העיוות הגדול. זה לא שכוהני התקינות הפוליטית או חסידי אדוארד סעיד הורידו את מינון הגזענות. להפך. הם הפכו את העולם המוסלמי לסוג של אח מפגר. לעולם המוסלמי מותר לדכא מיעוטים נוצריים, לאסור על פתיחת כנסיות, להוציא להורג מוסלמי שהתנצר, וגם להתבכיין על כך שלא מאפשרים לאיסלאמיסטים לכפות את הערכים שלהם על קהילות מוסלמיות במערב. ובסופו של יום זה העולם החופשי שצריך גם להתנצל ולהתרפס. "Years of political correctness created a great distortion. The priests of Political Correctness and fans of Edward Said did not reduce the quantity of racism and bigotry. On the contrary: They turned the Muslim world into a kind of a retarded brother. The Muslim world is allowed to oppress Christian minorities, to prohibit the building of new churches, to execute a Muslim who converted into Christianity, and whine about how the Islamists are not freely allowed to impose their values on Muslims in the West. And when all is said and done, it is the free world which is called upon to supplicate and apoligize."

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 1:17pm

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

OK somebody explain to me this: Iran threatens peace. Israel starts a war. Hello? Look. I will boil it down for you guys. Israel starts a war, Israel will be seen, around the world, as the aggressor, full stop. This is not 1967. The Syrians and the Egyptians, backed by the Soviets, are not massed on the borders making threats of genocide. We peaceniks are not "wimps" with regard to Israel's safety. We think that reckless military adventurism is insane. The fears of Israel's destruction are likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy at this rate. Preemptive war, by definition, will result in violence and further isolation of Israel, huge damage to the state and people of Israel; and also, a gigantic upward surge of antisemitism around the world. This is already a problem, and is likely to isolate and victimize not on Israelis but Jews around the world who are by definition very small minorities. Already we are blamed for everything from 9/11 to Iraq to the banking crisis and we are seeing pretty open Nazism here in the States; it's been obvious in Britain for years. We can't change this but do we have throw fuel on the fire by starting a war? The issue with the Palestinians MUST be dealt with rationally and ditto, Iran; and "rationally" does not include initiating violence especially when your immediate neighbors are armed to the teeth and have been brainwashed to hate you already. Just go drop some bombs and see how they react. Is this clear I hope? Finally, I agree with wildboy's analysis. There is much to hope for and so much to lose by initiating a war. If Iran starts a war then you react. Finally I think it's absurd to sit there assuming Iran will nuke Israel. Why the hell would they? Regardless of their rhetoric what do they have to gain to assuring their own destruction?

- Sophia

March 2, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

Malahat, I meant what lessons would you draw about the wisdom of discontinuing your policy of you were running Iran, based on the US/Israeli threat? Would the threat to have your program bombed out of existence suffice to cause you to abandon it? Do you think Iran thinks the US is bluffing? ____________________ The title to the article linked by noga in response to the polls is: "Why Israeli Public Opinion Doesn’t Matter for a Strike on Iran" It argues that public opinion is irrelevant. I think this is unresponsive to Tristan's point, which is that, even the Israeli public, subject to all the existential angst of an Iranian nuclear threat, does not support attacking Iran at this time. Why not? Why are both the US government and Israeli public opinion wrong? And how an it be argued that the USG simply fails properly to understand the threat to Israel if Israelis on balance agree? Of course, Netanyahu can proceed without a majority of public support. It would hardly be the first time that a leader in a democracy has done so. Re Iraq invasion, January 2003 poll data: Approximately two-thirds of respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately. As I recall we did proceed to invade Iraq, notwithstanding American public opinion on the wisdom of doing so at the time.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 1:22pm

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

I meant, "by" assuring their own destruction. Honestly do you guys know any actual Iranians? I do. They are not crazy people.

- Sophia

March 2, 2012 at 1:23pm

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

"Finally I think it's absurd to sit there assuming Iran will nuke Israel. Why the hell would they? Regardless of their rhetoric what do they have to gain to assuring their own destruction?" Your rational question assumes you are dealing with a rational entity.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 1:25pm

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

I know many Iranians, too. Not only are they not crazy, they also know that Iran has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel, politically or otherwise. They think the Iranian regime is crazy.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 1:27pm

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

Mikelawyr22/ATLeft Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Amit http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2004/062304.htm

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 1:30pm

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

"There's no denying that the enemies of freedom come from free societies, from a slice of the enlightened elite who deny the benefits of democratic rights to the rest of humanity, and more specifically to their compatriots, if they're unfortunate enough to belong to another religion or ethnic group." More of the same tendentious illogic that passes for thought on the right. It is a non-sequitur to go from the belief that all societies would benefit from democratic self-government (even the United States which is increasingly a "bankocracy" with elections and government bought by the rich) to the belief that they or the world would be better off on balance if we assisted the transition to democracy through force or arms or the provision of arms. Also, while one can affirm the freedom of speech to criticize Islam, and I surely do affirm that freedom without reservation, that does not imply that every criticism is wise or that the risk of giving offense ought not be considered when criticizing. The authors of our First Amendment were keenly aware that freedom of speech carried real risks of harm. Thus, one can believe in the liberal freedom to think and speak ones mind without simultaneously believing that every thought uttered is therefore itself beyond criticism.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 1:32pm

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

Pascal Bruckner would be very surprised to be designated as a thinker "on the right". Maybe by the likes of Tariq Ramadan.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 1:40pm

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

But, having studied GHWB and the First Gulf War, would you abandon your nuclear program? You can put yourself in their shoes to think about it. Don't you want to consider the manner in which enemies respond to threats? Doing so is essential to drawing sound policy conclusions. I quite agree that the annihilationist threats are gratuitous and can only be understood as for political consumption in the Moslem world (here enemies are demonized, unlike in the west where we certainly do not attribute all sorts of demonic powers and intentions to our enemies -- or only do so because we are correct). The threats are surely not an aid to Iran's program which would have been better carried out with the sort of dissembling and absence of rhetoric that characterized Israel and Pakistan's successful development of nuclear weapons. The threats only excite the opposition of the west and make sanctions, or war, that much easier to achieve.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 1:43pm

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

For ones I agree with roid. I don't think that Obama should make any commitments to Israel if those commitments contradict American interest. On the other hand, he should not sabotage Israeli attempts to defend itself because eventually, the entire Western world will be the beneficiary of Israeli daring. Just like Osirak and Syria. Sophia: "This is not 1967. The Syrians and the Egyptians, backed by the Soviets, are not massed on the borders making threats of genocide." No, the Iranians are working on a nuclear device threatening nuclear genocide, is that any less dangerous for you?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 1:48pm

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

Actually, I was denying that anyone who could say something as stupid as that quote from Bruckner can be considered a thinker at all, from any part of the political spectrum. He repeats a standard rightist trope, whether he finds his political home on the right or not.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 1:52pm

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

Let me see: The US assisted in the assassination of a democratic Iranian leader to install a regime more to its liking. It supported that regime for decades, including its vicious secret police, SAVAK. When Iraq invaded Iran, in violation of international law, we did not stand for the law but assisted the invaders, no doubt responsible for prolonging that war and leading to many thousands of Iranian deaths. When we wanted to decapitate the government next door, in Iraq, we did. Regime change in Iran is a political staple of American political discourse. Israel declares itself the most loyal ally of the US. Other than the hostage-taking, in a spasmodic, and relatively pale, response to the indignities inflicted by us on the Iranian people, what has Iran ever done to us? If Iran had done to us what we have done to it, would you not think that sufficient grounds for regarding Iran as our mortal enemy? Indeed, we regard Iran as our enemy on the basis of much less. I don't agree that Iran's enemies are all something it dreamt up. Part of our relentless blindness in international affairs is our inability to understand how perfectly rational actors can and should regard us as enemies, despite our own absolute faith that our enemies only choose us and not vice versa. No matter what we do to them, we think they should recognize our completely benign intentions.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 2:01pm

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

Sophia's post brings up a fair question. Is there anyone that believes that in the worst possible scenario, where Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel, that the United States would not wipe Iran off the map? The crazy mullahs in tehran can't possibly believe this, can they?

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 2:06pm

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

Forget that, Tristan. Is there anyone who believes that in the worst possible scenario, where Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel, that Israel itself would not wipe Iran off the map, and probably the capitals of a few threatening Arab states while it was at it? The claim is that the crazy mullahs are willing to see their country destroyed down to the last human being and human artifact in return from the chance to use a nuclear bomb against Israel. They would even be willing to take the risk of a dud, as blackton points out, and total destruction for nothing. That's how crazy they are, or so we are expected to belief as sufficient reason for starting a war today. Upon reflection, I can indeed think of a rational reason for Iran's annihilationist rhetoric toward Israel, to persuade the Sunni states that Iran's weapons program is no threat to them.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 2:15pm

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

roi is the sanest of all posters. Israel and the US are two separate countries. Each has their own foreign and domestic policies-- that latter having many elements in common and some not in common, even in direct conflict. So long as nation states exist, that is a given. There are some aspects of current Israeli policy that should be directly opposed by a US President and Congress, like settlements well beyond the 1967 borders, as against US interests and liberal values (and conservative values, if not tactics, for that matter). As for Iranian nukes, that issue is exceptionally complicated.

- drofnats1

March 2, 2012 at 2:16pm

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

Not that Iran has any reason to feel threatened by the Sunni.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 2:16pm

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

I said this was a reason why they would do it, although it seems deleterious from the standpoint of the program. Doesn't mean that it would be accepted by the Sunni. Similar to the reasons that Pakistan describes its weapon as an "Islamic bomb." I also don't doubt for a second that, whatever high government officials in Saudi Arabia may think, Iran's direction of ire toward Israel is at least partially successful in avoiding a popular adverse reaction in the Arab world. Do you think that because Israel declaimed "first introduction of nuclear weapons into the Middle East" that the Arabs all believed it was not developing and did not have nuclear weapons? There are reasons for diplomatic indirection and dissembling that do not include the naïve belief that every claim made will be accepted by friend and foe without question at face value.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 3:03pm

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

Annihilationist threats that are gratuitous and can only be understood as for political consumption in the Moslem world have the tendency to quickly develop into actions. Stupid is he who does not take enemy threats seriously.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 2, 2012 at 3:12pm

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

..Forget that, Tristan. Is there anyone who believes that in the worst possible scenario, where Iran used nuclear weapons against Israel, that Israel itself would not wipe Iran off the map, and probably the capitals of a few threatening Arab states while it was at it? The claim is that the crazy mullahs are willing to see their country destroyed down to the last human being and human artifact in return from the chance to use a nuclear bomb against Israel. They would even be willing to take the risk of a dud, as blackton points out, and total destruction for nothing. That's how crazy they are, or so we are expected to belief as sufficient reason for starting a war today... That's what I've been trying to argue here. And you put it succinctly and well. Where here is the good case against this line of reasoning in the reckoning of costs and benefits of Isaeli military action now? I haven't seen it save for speculation on what the " crazed"Ayatollahs" are "banking on." ("Crazed" is my word, note anyone else's.) What needs to be clearly understood and weighed are the consequences--all of them and they're horrendous to contemplate--of an Israeli preemptive attack compared to the assessment of an Irani attack which vouchsafes its own substantial devastation, as Roi has pointed out more than once and with a better explanation of Israeli retaliatory capacity than I have seen come from the arguers for present Israeli action.

- basman

March 2, 2012 at 3:26pm

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

Certainly they should be taken seriously, but that doesn't explain why the threat is made and what this indicates about intentions. To warn ones enemies and inspire them to preemptive action? Doesn't seem right, does it? Apart from immediately going to war as the only possible response, why are people so unwilling to try and understand how the world appears from the point of view of the enemy and how that can explain their actions and inform expectations about what they may do both next and in response to ones own actions? I find the sort of "analysis" that says "better take it seriously" not particularly useful when important decisions must be made. People keep saying these things as if it were a sufficient answer to something. If someone threatens to murder you, do you immediately murder them? Does the fact of a threat by itself immediately explain what is to be done about it, without regard to any understanding of who makes it, what they intend, their means, the consequences to them, their state of mind? If someone threatens to murder you while you hold the only weapon in the room and have it against the middle their forehead, must you pull the trigger lest you be guilty of not taking the threat seriously? I don't recall suggesting that Israel disarm.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 3:32pm

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

"If someone threatens to murder you, they should always be taken seriously" No doubt. But to piggyback on your quote and follow with an analogy, this is the equivalent of someone threatening to murder you and your family by coming to your house and doing the deed themself... your house, which mind you is guarded by a cadre of heavily armed men. And right next door is a house with an even bigger cadre of even more heavily armed men, hell bent on either protecting you or exacting mortal revenge. The person threatening you may succeed, they may not. But no one involved in this little play has any illusions that the murderer would not be killed during or after the attempt. In this analogy, would you be concerned about the threat? Absolutely. Would you assume the threat was credible enough to warrant going to the guy's house and pre-emptively killing him? Not so sure about that one.

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 3:34pm

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

A high Saudi official says: "We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that," the official said. "If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit." Is there no reason for Iran to have a similar belief given what the US has done to it and the proclamations of Israel as our closest ally, "land-based aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean" and all that sort of thing? As I noted once before, my Parisian-Iranian friend, a refugee from the Iranian revolution, who advises the government of Israel on matters of internal Iranian affairs thinks it is outrageous for Israel to have nuclear weapons and for Iran to be denied them. I don't agree, but I take his attitude as indicating that there is at least more going on here than crazy mullahs bent on their own destruction in order to destroy Israel. So, if Iran believes itself threatened with regime change, for example, as opposed to on a course straight to armageddon (Why is the battle of Megiddo the battle to end all battles?), does this say anything at all about the appropriate responses, or are they all the same as if the crazy mullahs want to blow up the world?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 3:41pm

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

Most baffling of all to me is the inability to see our own role in this. It has been, what, a couple of thousand years since Persia invaded anyone? Iraq invaded Iran 30 years ago, the war went on for eight years, and we helped Iraq. (Remember those pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand?) Should this not be sufficient to demonstrate our malign intentions? Not our words mind you, our deeds. What won't those crazy Americans do in their enmity toward Iran?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 3:47pm

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

Is there a mullah in Iran crazier than Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum? Not that I can see.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 3:48pm

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

I don't read this statement as a threat to destroy Israel. That is not what "stalemate" means. Rather, I interpret it to mean that Israel had been able to force its will over the whole of Palestine because it is protected by its own nuclear weapons. If there is a nuclear standoff, then Israel has to be rather more circumspect. It might be a call for the destruction of Israel by nuclear arms (something Rafsanjani acknowledges Israel already to have), but I doubt it. Although rather brief, it is a not irrational description of the balance of power. Where does in this statement does Rafsanjani threaten to destroy Israel? And where does it say he would willingly accept nuclear retaliation in order to do so?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 4:13pm

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

roi, you overstate our "help" to Iraq in the war with Iran. Iraq had been and was a Soviet client. Nearly all their equipment, tactics and doctrine was Soviet. We had no mil-mil contacts with them in 1980. To the extent we supported them, it was as the enemy of our enemy, Iran. Also, I'm not sure how much the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh, dome in the main by the Brits, explains the mullahs' actions of today. in answer to a previous question, yes, I believe that the Iranians believe that Obama is bluffing. This is extremely dangerous, as Saddam found out about W. I am not in favor (yet) of a strike on Iran's nuclear program, but then I'm not the Israeli PM.

- butchie b

March 2, 2012 at 4:14pm

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

Can the United States trust Israel? That question should come first, friends.

- Dtwolfe

March 2, 2012 at 4:15pm

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

p.s. This is a good thread because it's comprised by and large with contrasting arguments vigorously made with a minimum of rancor and insult.

- basman

March 2, 2012 at 4:22pm

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

Basman/Malahat, you beat me to it. This has been the best conversation thread in awhile. Peace.

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 4:29pm

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

Sophia seems to think that Iran hasn't made war on Israel. Iran has aided Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Jihadis for years. Thousands of Iranian-supplied rockets have been fired at Israel. Only Israel's military power, with help from the US, has prevented a Final Solution. Lebanon and Syria have not become Iranian puppet states through immaculate conception. Iran has been waging low-intensity war against Israel and the US since the Ayatollahs came to power courtesy of Carter and Brzezinski. Those who scoff at Iranian threats to annihilate Israel have not been paying attention to the daily threats and rhetoric of religious demonization, Iranian-sponsored 3rd party terrorism, and and other aggressive actions since 1979. Denial of reality is the last resort of cornered opponents of Israel. Religious demonization of the Jews is old hat in Islamic Iran, beginning with Islamic scriptures and proceeding to the Shi'ite innovation of "Najis", ritual impurity from Jews sharing the same the drinking water or touching hands with Muslims. Aryan racism was added to the mix with Nazism. I supposed that if there had been an Israeli air force in the 1940's, it would have been considered unsporting and uncooperative of them to bomb the railroad tracks to Auschwitz. That would have aroused German retaliation and distracted the Allies from winning the war.

- amidut

March 2, 2012 at 4:30pm

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

My goodness 102 posts. I don't have the time to read them all. If anyone said anything they haven't before please let me know.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 4:38pm

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

Sophia “I meant, "by" assuring their own destruction. Honestly do you guys know any actual Iranians? I do. They are not crazy people.” Sophia, get a grip. There is a categorical confusion in your comment. Individuals are the State and they are not even the whole of a people. An individual can be peaceful while his family, his people, his nation is war like. I too have known many Iranians. One Iranian did graduate work here and teaches now at a local University. He is also aghast by what the Mullah’s have done to his country. But then he is secular and a leftist. No one here as far as I know has confused individuals with the whole of a people. But then I didn't read each and every comment.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 4:45pm

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

Iran has declared war not just on Israel but on the Jewish people. They killed hundreds of Jews and others in Argentina a few years back when they bombed the a Jewish community Center and the Israeli Embassy.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 4:46pm

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

Arnon1, nobody here is confusing the Iranian people with the Islamic regime. There are many Iranians opposed to the present regime and even to Islam. Which makes Obama's appeasement of the Mullahs all the more appalling. Just why is he now pursuing this "negotiations" gambit? It merely buys the mullahs more time.

- amidut

March 2, 2012 at 4:56pm

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

I think that Obama should say very little and leave the Iranians guessing. I make the basic assumption that there are many-layered contacts on daily basis between Israel, a significant ally, and the U.S., and almost none between the U.S. and Iran, with whom we don't even have basic diplomatic relations. We are somewhat in the dark about Teheran, but they are perhaps more so about us -- if they believe they have Obama pegged correctly, they make the same mistake a lot of people on this thread are making. That said, Iran does not have nuclear weapons at the moment, and from the range of things I read it seems that there is little agreement about when they can move to that capability. If they do achieve that capability, they can crow but they also enter a new world of fear because they become a legitimate target for massive counterstrikes if they even use it, or move to use it in a clearly aggressive way.

- ironyroad

March 2, 2012 at 5:26pm

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

butchie, I think you are mistaken about the extent of US aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war "United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4] Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6] ___________________________ A particularly awful section of the wikipedia is this: On May 25, 1994, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[30] The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[31] It appears that we were the source of Iraq's bio-weapons program that so outraged us later on when Saddam Hussein was no longer our tool. ______________________ Do you think, butchie, that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is sufficient reason for the US to have assisted Iraq in making illegal war on Iran? It seems that western casualty estimates for Iran in that war run from 1 million to 1.9 million and killed from half a million to three quarters of a million. More than died in the World Trade Center. This is the kind of thinking that continually gets us into trouble, and then we wonder why we have enemies and there is another round. No other major power has been as profligate as the US in the use of force, directly and by proxy. amidut says: "Sophia seems to think that Iran hasn't made war on Israel. Iran has aided Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Jihadis for years." If Iran has been at war with Israel by proxy, one can certainly say that the US has been at war with Iran by proxy (and also rather more directly). Now, given also that "regime change" is a staple of American politics, particularly on the right (yes, we're looking at you Martin Peretz), why exactly should the Iranian regime not believe that we are not out to destroy it? _______________________________ The Times reports this afternoon Obama being more explicit about US use of force to stop Iran, pooh-poohing the possibility of containment. Seems like this is the quid pro quo for Israel sitting on its hands at least through November. Then it will be a whole new ballgame. Not quite what Yossi Klein Halevi wanted, if that matters. The theatrics continue.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 5:45pm

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

The gist of this thread can be summed up as a tug between those who are willing to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime and those who are unwilling to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime. It is an integral part of the affliction of gamblers that they are born undaunted optimists. Such optimists do not even consider the possibility that their expectations might turn out badly. Their hope of a positive outcome is experienced by them not as a tentativity, but as a sure certainty. When something thwarts their optimism, it is somebody elses' fault. I have not read anything here that indicates to me that those who are are willing to gamble on the rationality of the regime can actually provide any verifiable support for such a position. Thus they resort to talking about millennial history and returning to the same meme, that the Iranian threats do not make sense, rationally, and therefore they should not be taken as if they are meant. The strange thing is that those who do take the Iranian threats seriously are being excoriated as war mongerers. Ironically, I don't think Obama belongs in the gamblers' club. He takes Iranian threats seriously, enough to even consider the option of a policy of containment (I take Fareed Zakaria's solution to be little clues to Obama's inner thinking). If he accepts that the Iranians are headed towards nukes, I presume he relies on trusted, American-sourced, intelligence.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 5:52pm

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

"The gist of this thread can be summed up as a tug between those who are willing to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime and those who are unwilling to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime. It is an integral part of the affliction of gamblers that they are born undaunted optimists. Such optimists do not even consider the possibility that their expectations might turn out badly." One might say this, but noga assumes the optimists are on the side of restraint. I would say just the opposite. The advocates of bombing Iran seem "do not even consider the possibility that their expectations might turn out badly" and that there are significant risks in both directions. I should say the quarrel is between those who see the risks in both directions and those who are unreasonably optimistic about the outcome of making war on Iran. The history of our wars in the Middle East, including Iran, with each echoing forward into the future, our "allies" in Afghanistan becoming the support for the destroyers of the World Trade Center, our "ally," Saddam Hussein becoming our nemesis and sucking us into a disaster, does not give cause for optimism. We, however, possessed of endless historical amnesia, most particularly the rightwing that always touts these adventures as the solution, never recall how our own actions ushered in the present.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 6:01pm

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

And I would like to know what exactly is the evidence of Iranian irrationality? That Rafsanjani says Iranian nuclear weapons would produce a stalemate? That's it? What irrational behavior do we observe, something at least as crazy as climate change denial by Republicans?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 6:09pm

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

roi, you cannot change the direction in this thread to fit your own purposes. The fact is that the argument boils down to whether the Iranian regime is rational or not. "We, however, possessed of endless historical amnesia, most particularly the rightwing that always touts these adventures as the solution, never recall how our own actions ushered in the present." History also doesn't matter all that much if Iran's purpose is to dominate the Middle East and destroy Israel. Even if they are absolutely justified in pursuing their goals, even if their grudge against the West is fully merited, they cannot be allowed to that.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 6:19pm

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

"crazy ... climate change denial by Republicans" does not pose an immediate existential threat to any country, does not have the potential to ignite a world war or even threaten shortage of oil supply.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 6:21pm

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

I deliberately set the craziness bar very low, noga. It may be difficult for the advocates of bombing Iran now, or if not now, soon, and for the rest of our lives, to think hypothetically, but . . . If the Iranians denied the intention to build a bomb and when asked always insisted, "Iran will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East" (sound familiar?) with no Rafsanjani-like utterances, but otherwise continued with its program in the same manner, would the zeal to bomb Iran, the urgency to do it now, be any less? I rather doubt it. _______________________ Nope, malahat, you haven't convinced me at all. You don't think Iran has any rational basis to suppose it has enemies that it would want to deter. I do. That does not of course decide the question, but it does undermine the claim that the Iranians are demonstrably irrational for even wanting the bomb.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 6:30pm

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

"The gist of this thread can be summed up as a tug between those who are willing to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime and those who are unwilling to gamble on the rationality of the Iranian regime." This is a great comment, and I don't disagree. But I have a question, for anyone out there that is qualified to answer... Isn't it understood that in order for Iran to be declared as "having" one or more nuclear weapond, they have to test one? Until they do, it's all supposition. To wit: is it not enough for Obama to say to Iran: you test a nuclear device, and we strike and we keep striking until whatever is left of your government agrees to give up all nuclear ambitions. You claim to the world to have a working nuclear device, you get the same result. You attack Israel with an unproven nuclear device (my narrow understanding of the the science involved in the issue is that this would be human history's biggest roll of the dice, and for no sane reason at that), same thing. Finally, option four, if our formidable combined intelligence assets tell us there is evidence you are days away from fully assembling a nuclear device, well... you get the picture. "Dove" that I am, I'd be 100% behind hitting Iran with everything we have if any of those 4 criteria are met. But we're not there yet. My question is, is my understanding of what we would "know" once they perfected a nuclear device accurate?

- Tristan

March 2, 2012 at 6:41pm

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

If Iran were a real democracy, living in peace with her neighbors, keeping its dirty hands off terrorist organizations, not making genocidal threats against another regional country, and if it insisted on nukes, it would get the exact treatment that India does.

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 6:46pm

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

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/ I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us. I'd say that's pretty categorical? Does the author or anyone else have examples of where the President has made a commitment to Israel and hasn't kept it?

- Nari224

March 2, 2012 at 7:32pm

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

The headline is a little hyperbolic but teh substance of Obama's comment is right on: "Obama Says Iran Strike Is an Option, but Warns Israel" By MARK LANDLER "WASHINGTON — President Obama, speaking days before a crucial meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, stiffened his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even as he warned Israel of the negative consequences of a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Seeking to reassure a close American ally that contends it has reached a moment of reckoning with Iran, Mr. Obama rejected suggestions that the United States was willing to try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. He declared explicitly that his administration would use force — a “military component,” as he put it — only as a last resort to prevent Tehran from acquiring a bomb. The president also said he would try to convince Mr. Netanyahu, whom he is meeting here on Monday at a time of heightened fears of a conflict, that a premature military strike could help Iran by allowing it to portray itself as a victim of aggression. And he said such military action would only delay, not prevent, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:32pm

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

Really, malahat? Assuming Iran believes that it needs to deter the US and Israel from attempting violent regime change there (not an irrational belief), something we have done before and like to speculate about out loud (is that somehow different from Iran speculating about attacking Israel), what does Iran need to deter us?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 9:33pm

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

I suspect that if India were our enemy, it would get the exact same treatment as Iran does.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 9:37pm

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

I have also been arguing along these lines: Fearful of a nuclear Iran? The real WMD nightmare is Syria By Charles P. Blair | 1 March 2012 http://www.thebulletin.org/print/web-edition/op-eds/fearful-of-nuclear-iran-the-real-wmd-nightmare-syria "As possible military action against Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program looms large in the public arena, far more international concern should be directed toward Syria and its weapons of mass destruction. When the Syrian uprising began more than a year ago, few predicted the regime of President Bashar al-Assad would ever teeter toward collapse. Now, though, the demise of Damascus's current leadership appears inevitable, and Syria's revolution will likely be an unpredictable, protracted, and grim affair. Some see similarities with Libya's civil war, during which persistent fears revolved around terrorist seizure of Libyan chemical weapons, or the Qaddafi regime's use of them against insurgents. Those fears turned out to be unfounded. But the Libyan chemical stockpile consisted of several tons of aging mustard gas leaking from a half-dozen canisters that would have been impossible to utilize as weapons. Syria likely has one of the largest and most sophisticated chemical weapon programs in the world. Moreover, Syria may also possess an offensive biological weapons capability that Libya did not."

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:41pm

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

And if the argument boils down to whether the Iranian regime were rational, I take it that regime change, preemptive war, would all be off the table? I doubt that. The claimed irrationality of the Iranians, for which I don't see much evidence at all, is the justification for what Israel thinks is in its strategic interest and a part of the campaign to get the US to do the dirty work. I highly doubt the US ever will, notwithstanding Obama's statements.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 9:43pm

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

That was published by "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists." http://www.thebulletin.org/node/9023

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:43pm

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

"I suspect that if India were our enemy, it would get the exact same treatment as Iran does." Why would India be an enemy to the US? Is there a bona fide democracy that the US counts as an enemy?

- noga1

March 2, 2012 at 9:45pm

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

Iraq may turn out to be the first. Egypt might turn out to be the second. But that is beside the point. We only threaten our enemies. So? Can we expect them therefore not to feel threatened by us? As well, the perception that it is acceptable to have nuclear arms as long as you are a friend of the US doesn't exactly help the case against non-proliferation. And if the argument boils down to whether the Iranian regime were rational, I take it that regime change, preemptive war, would all be off the table? I doubt that. Anyone who claims it is all about crazy mullahs want to stand up for the proposition that, if they were demonstrably as rational as we, Israel et Cie would forswear bombing Iran? Not all at once, of course

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 9:54pm

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

"The claimed irrationality of the Iranians, for which I don't see much evidence at all, is the justification for what Israel thinks is in its strategic interest and a part of the campaign to get the US to do the dirty work. I highly doubt the US ever will, notwithstanding Obama's statements." Obama knows better than anyone here what is in the US best interests. Not allowing Iran go nuclear is on our interest. Ideology, not irrationality is the issue. Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. This is something they reasserted on many occasions.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 9:54pm

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

In any case, I trust Obama to make the fateful choice for the United States, but not while an election looms. I think his speech about this today is meant primarily to ensure that there is as little pressure as possible that binds up election politics with a decision that should be made on national security grounds. I wouldn't trust Netanyahu's judgment, or word about anything, as far as I could spit.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 9:58pm

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

So far, Obama's decisions about whether and how to use force, and when to withdraw, have been exemplary. That is why I trust him. The contrast with the strategic decisions of Bush, and the diplomatic and strategic blundering of Netanyahu, could not be more stark. The Obama speeches that the Peretz crowd get so exercised about have only helped us in slowly re-organizing other powers to cooperate with us by dissuading others that this country is still run by a bunch of foolish cowbosy. Peretz et al are disappointed because they imagined that Obama thought his words were magically going to solve various problems. The disappointment is only by virtue of their own ridiculous assumptions about Obama's intentions. When Obama sees the need to smite enemies, he gets on about it. He wisely does not see the purpose in broadcasting his intentions or spewing threats left and right so as to evoke a counter-reaction before the fact.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 10:05pm

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

"Ideology, not irrationality is the issue." This is far closer to the mark than the claim that the argument is about whether the Iranians are rational. We don't want our enemies able to project power, but there are indeed risks in both directions.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 10:08pm

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

An interesting interview on Iran published in the Times of Israel: http://www.timesofisrael.com/few-iranians-believe-the-bomb-can-protect-the-regime-or-ensure-its-survival/ "‘Few Iranians believe the bomb can protect the regime or ensure its survival’"

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 10:12pm

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

"The nuclear issue is viewed mostly in nationalistic terms. Not as a potential “ayatollahs’ bomb” or Shi’ite bomb, but as a sign of Iranian progress. Many people, even those most opposed to the regime, support Iran’s nuclear program and it’s surprising to hear the number of people who go beyond what the regime claims and actually hope for an Iranian bomb." This is exactly what my Parisian-Iranian friend says, and he is not interested in hearing about the mullah's verbal threats to Israel although he himself is a friend and adviser to the government of Israel. No reason for anyone, in or out of Iran, to think a bomb could protect the regime against internal political pressure or revolution. How would that be possible? But the regime might well think that a bomb could protect it from regime change by external force force of arms.

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 11:20pm

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

"No reason for anyone, in or out of Iran, to think a bomb could protect the regime against internal political pressure or revolution. How would that be possible? But the regime might well think that a bomb could protect it from regime change by external force force of arms." Which is one more reason to make sure they don't get it, as Obama knows.

- arnon1

March 2, 2012 at 11:31pm

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

Or maybe it is one more reason why we should stop fantasizing and speculating publicly about knocking off the leadership of countries hostile to us. Is that making the world safer or just making right-wingnuts feel pumped up?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 11:39pm

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

And what if Obama knows that even we cannot knock out Iran's nuclear program by bombing it? Centrifuges are not particularly large. Do you suppose it would occur to the Iranians to hide large numbers of them elsewhere than the obvious facilities? Do you suppose the same might be true of stocks of uranium fluoride or yellowcake? Is it possible that the Iranians don't just leave the most important elements of their program in plain view, clearly identified? Or are they just sitting around hoping not to be bombed?

- roidubouloi

March 2, 2012 at 11:42pm

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

Roid will have the last word.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 12:56am

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

Iran is the center of moral corruption a menace to all. See the interview by Charlie Rose of  Shimon Perez , last night broadcast on PBS. Excerpt on the Hindustan Times.  http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/RestOfAsia/Iran-is-centre-of-moral-corruption-Peres/Article1-820134.aspx roidubouloi has taken a new banner in his hatred of Israel, now is an apologizer for Iran. He joins Roger Cohen of the anti Israel New York Times.   roi..dent , hemo..roid,  is a Galiciener dishonest self hatred Jew vicious anti Israel vermin. Why is he self hatred Jew? Only he knows. Do us a favor shorten your biased, dishonest comments.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 6:49am

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

Peres:" Obama is a great President, security ties are the best we ever had " http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/peres-obama-is-a-great-president-security-ties-are-the-best-we-ve-ever-had-1.416030 Shimon Peres is a mehaye , a pleasure to listen too. Brilliancy of our Jewish Israeli leaders.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 6:57am

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

Obama says he is not bluffing on Iran military option http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/02/us-usa-israel-iran-idUSTRE82108520120302 Here is Obama at his best.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 7:03am

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

My last word, thank you arnon, is this: I think Obama's decisions will be driven by his perception of strategic necessity, the strategic interests of the US (which everyone else in the world including Israel will just have to live with as we are the 900-pound gorilla), and the intelligence analysis of American agencies (with an aggregate budget that is probably in the neighborhood of Israel's gross domestic product). Whatever distinct information Israel has to add to the mix will be considered, but without reliance on Israeli analysis or claims. I think the US will listen politely to Israeli analyses and consider them on their merits. Heavy breathing will not count, nor will analogies to Hitler. Obama will expect Israel not to get in his way or in the way of his timetable, whatever it is, for good or ill. He will not allow himself to be driven by the election calendar or by Israel or by AIPAC or even by columnists in TNR questioning his intellect, his honest, his virility, whether he is an anti-Semite (well, only one columnist would do that), or anything else. I doubt that any decision has been taken at this time, but contingency plans are being made with all the intelligence and energy we can bring to bear. If and when, we will be as ready as possible. I think his comments yesterday on the subject were just right. Iran was not, however, the intended audience. The purpose was to get Israel and the right-wing (is there a difference?) off his back while he gets on about doing his job. I think he will be successful in this, because the political risk of questioning him publicly is now too great. (Of course not for you-know-who and company who will continue to kvetch, as ever. A bomb dropped somewhere every day keeps the blood flowing you know.) This is as it should be, and why the man deserves to be president of the United States and why I will sleep better at night while he remains in office.

- roidubouloi

March 3, 2012 at 10:34am

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

LatmaTV's pre-emptive strike on too many of the commenters in this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d9yz_GyuzKE#! "...This week we feature MK Shaul Mofaz and his bid for Prime Minister. We also introduce our correspondent on environmentally friendly nuclear bombs, Serene Flatulence who discusses the Iranian nuclear program with Ronit and Elhanan...." Mr. Serene Flatulence's disengenous reportage starts after minute 6.

- K2K

March 3, 2012 at 11:04am

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

"I think he will be successful in this, because the political risk of questioning him publicly is now too great." "This is ... why I will sleep better at night while he remains in office." There is a risk for publicly questioning the decisions and policies of the leader of the freest most democratic country in the world? How far will Obama go in imposing a ban on questioning him publicly? And what does "publicly" exactly mean, in this context? "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." From 1984, by George Orwell Let me re-phrase it: Many Americans will sleep better when Obama's faithful servants will weed out all those Israel-firsters, the New Afrikaaners, AIPAC workers, and columnists in TNR questioning his divine wisdom. Or maybe roi means there is a risk for Israel to question Obama's policies as they pertain directly to Israel's existence and future? Why would there be a political risk for Israelis to question of Obama? Surely roi is not suggesting revenge on Israel because it dares to question Obama's wisdom? Or does he?

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 11:07am

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

" President Obama, speaking days before a crucial meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, stiffened his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even as he warned Israel of the negative consequences of a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Seeking to reassure a close American ally that contends it has reached a moment of reckoning with Iran, Mr. Obama rejected suggestions that the United States was willing to try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. He declared explicitly that his administration would use force — a “military component,” as he put it — only as a last resort to prevent Tehran from acquiring a bomb." Obama's audience was Iran and Israel. The answers to most issues here re complex and don't land themselves to categorical answers.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 11:26am

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

"The answers to most issues here re complex and don't land themselves to categorical answers." This is a correct and appropriate way of framing the issue. Compare it with roi's threatening, borderline fascist, formulation of the same.

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 11:30am

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

roi..dent, hemo...roid. How far would you go attacking Israel you Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew. Now your new bigotry is to apologize and defend Iran, a center of moral corruption. Now this roi..dent creep kisses ass with Obama by demonizing Israel as right wing. roi..dent, hemo..roid, promotes failed international institutions claiming illegality of liberated territories. And gloats of the failed UN, Unesco, Gladstone dishonest report. In their continuous condemnation of Israel. Not a word about the terroristic militaristic theocracy Iran. he keeps mute, hence supports, Ahmadenijad and ayatollah Kameinih proclamations of destroying Israel, Plus Iran planting thousands of missiles in Lebanon/Hizbullah, Gaza/Hamas, and Iranian operatives assisting Syria in the massacre underway of Sunni Arabs. Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons. Obama or not Obama. And the roi..dent Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew will be confronted and obligated to shorten his imbecilic rantings.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 11:33am

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

Obama will also listen to our atomic scientists: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/fearful-of-nuclear-iran-the-real-wmd-nightmare-syria These scientists present a nuance and complex tapestry of threats from both Syria and Iran, though Syria is the most immediate threat.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 11:34am

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

"Fearful of a nuclear Iran? The real WMD nightmare is Syria By Charles P. Blair | 1 March 2012 Article Highlights Syria has one of the largest and most sophisticated chemical weapons programs in the world and may also possess offensive biological weapons. Longstanding terrorist groups and newly arrived Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters from Iraq have been active in Syria during that country's recent insurgency. The United States and regional powers -- including Saudi Arabia and Iran -- need to start planning now to keep Syria's WMD out of terrorist hands if the Assad regime falls." http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/fearful-of-nuclear-iran-the-real-wmd-nightmare-syria

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 11:40am

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

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/fearful-of-nuclear-iran-the-real-wmd-nightmare-syria

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 11:41am

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

roi..dent, hemo..roid. The Galicianer self hatred Jew, virulent vermin anti-Israel. States that USA intelligence agencies budget is larger the Israel GDP. This old jackass is slipping with lies galore. Their budget is larger than 240 billion dollars? And that USA intelligence are better than the best. And here it comes, Arab Spring came as a total surprise. Rebellion in Syria came as total surprise. Not sure, maybe, who knows blabbering by USA high officials if Iran is close to nuclear bomb. Their declarations are as distracted as distorted one year, two years, six months. this old vermin camel's derrière is becoming more vile by the hour on his hatred of Israel. What can you expect of a Galiciener dishonest self hatred Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 12:36pm

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

I wish the threads had a button which would allow you to blank out certain posters. The NY Times used to have it long ago when they had a full complement of threads on various topics. The also installed button which allowed one to filter out the comments of posters who were there merely to insult other posters. It worked well.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 12:47pm

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

arnon the inferior turret syndrome sufferer. It is ok when you insult, but when you are receiving your own sheist then it is not ok. You are a schlemiel unqualified to be promoted to schmuck due to your inferiority. You are so dumb that you don't realize roi..dent viciously attacking Israel with all kinds of distortions. But it makes sense you keep wiping roi..dent ass. What else could do an inferior arnon. And stop demonizing Netanyauh , he is out of your league.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 1:02pm

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

Scrolling past the insulting poster, chu chu. Irony was right, chu chu devolved rather than evolved over the years. He is a little old fascist in disguise who can't allow a contrary opinion to stand side by side his own opinions which to him are etched in stone. The rest of us either heretics fit to be beheaded or inferior beings fit to be annihilated.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 3:02pm

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

arnon you inferior turret syndrome sufferer schlemiel can not be promoted to schmuck because of his inferiority. A coward vermin. You will do a lot of good to hide your inferiority in the darkness of your half witted brain. You clean roid..dent derriere while he is pouring venom against Israel defending islamo fascist Iran. How dumb is inferior arnon? So dumb that he can not be promoted from schlemiel to schmuck because of his inferiority. You get upset dumb dumb , bypass my comments, go and clean hemor..roid derriere with perrier and drink it afterwards. And who said we did not have dumb dumb members of our clan? arnon the inferior is the example.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 3:45pm

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

You are wasting your time addressing me. I don't correspond with fascist low life, Chu chu.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 4:01pm

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

Chu chu needs to go back to insulting other posters, here. There isn't a poster he hasn't insulted and he thinks he does't have Turette's syndrome. The only reason he even knows about it is that he was told that he has it. Like all low life fascists, chu chu can't stop projecting.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 4:04pm

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

Now arnon dumb dumb don't try to defend yourself with the old anti schlemiel canard. Admit you are inferior and unqualified to demonize those that are superior to you. Hemo..roid, how can you be friends with stupid inferior arnon. It diminishes your anti Israel vicious vitriols. Keep him quiet when he is cleaning your derriere with Perrier and drinking it at the same time. Sorry to hear you have had this roidiarreah .

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 4:07pm

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

Obama's audience was Iran if you think it is remotely plausible that Iran will desist because we threaten to bomb its nuclear facilities, that is, abandon its program or we will destroy its program. That makes no sense at all. Objectively, if you ignore Israel's publicity campaign to pressure us, it is foolish to make such a threat unless you think Iran will respond as you wish. If not, the threat just makes your job harder or even impossible by spurring Iran to greater effort to secure its program. Did Israel announce it was going to destroy Osirak before doing so? Of course not. Tactically that would be foolish. Similarly when it destroyed Syria's nuclear facility. So, is Obama too dumb to realize that, thinking only about Iran, the public threat is counter to our interests? I doubt that. Then he must have some other reason for making the threat. Rather obviously, it is to quiet the critics and relieve himself of pressure to take actions that he does not want to take or want to take at this time. Hence my conclusion that the target audience is not Iran at all, but Israel and its friends. Yes, when the president of the United States says, it is my intention to assure x, it is not in our interest to be more specific, no one should doubt my word, there is then political risk to Israel or AIPAC or other groups in questioning his word. That's how life is. Of course, that does not mean that people like Martin Peretz and noga cannot continue to make their complaints and accusations. Surely they will, and we enjoy the freedom of speech that both lets them do it and allows those who are not hysterics to respond. But groups that want access to and the cooperation of the USG will think twice before renewing or provoking a public quarrel with the president. That allows Obama to take the course of action he deems bests, including no military action if he thinks that is in our interest at this time. Israel will understand that, if it defies Obama, it will be on its own as to the consequences, short of tanks rolling into Jerusalem as someone said up above or on another related thread. Obama is doing his job as leader of our country, and I frankly don't give a rat's ass whether Israel is discomfited as a result, or even thinks its existence is threatened as a result. Obama is the president of the United States and Israel is not the 51st state of the Union. It is not our responsibility to defend it. It is our responsibility to defend ourselves. That's how it is. We are a super-power, Israel is not. We make decisions that affect many others in the world and tend to use our power in our own interest. In some parallel universe where Israel is a super-power and we depend on it for our security, things are different. Too bad. Get over it. ______________________ noga says: "Compare it with roi's threatening, borderline fascist, formulation of the same." Well, noga, it must have been a tremendous struggle for you to last through more than 100 comments without resorting either to personal attacks or cutting and pasting someone elses words in order to invent statements to attribute to another poster, as you did with mine right above. I can picture you squirming in your seat, fidgeting unbearably, trying your best to participate in a civilized discussion amongst civilized people without your pathology becoming evident. And then you crack. The strain becomes too much for you to bear. Not at all a surprise.

- roidubouloi

March 3, 2012 at 4:09pm

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

But it makes happy dumb dumb arnon. He likes caramelized Perrier. Specially coming from roi,,dent derriere.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 4:11pm

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

We haven't even started to bomb Iran yet and already it has been supplanted by Syria as the greatest threat to Israel's existence and indeed therefore to western civilization.

- roidubouloi

March 3, 2012 at 4:13pm

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

The threats are grave, existential. Build "a few apartments in Jerusalem," in the words of Peretz. The threats will recede. The Netanyahu government's actions speak much louder than its words as to what it thinks is important. Of course, maybe a year or more ago when Netanyahu was doing his utmost to be provocative, the government of Israel didn't know about Iran and Syria.

- roidubouloi

March 3, 2012 at 4:19pm

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

roi..dent. Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew anti Israel par excellence, you are back from your siesta. Talking about Obama and his assertiveness. Did you hear ,or ignored, of the multiple standing ovations given to Netanyauh during his recent appearance to the USA Congress? Iran is a menace to all civilized, as you put it so biased, countries. It will be stopped from going nuclear, in spite of your Iranian apologetic gestures. You are a failed defender of obsessive international broken institutions. roi du bouloi, king of the stinking boloney

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 4:27pm

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

To all interested parties: I found this by accident from 28 September last year -- an early post by Jamie Chuch. Here in its entirety, nothing corrected: "When Bill Clinton was president Arafat visited the White House more than any other foreign leader. Dennis Ross ,chief negotiator for Clinton, describes how Arafat demanded always where is my money. Madeleine Albraight, the Secretary of State cooked lunch for Arafat. Clinton despised and so treated Nethanyauh the Prime Minister of Israel. Bill Clinton,s antagonism to Nethanyauh has not changed. Bill Clinton thought, and certainly advised, that BHO and Hillary,s malevolent treatment of Nethanyauh will bring him down. Nethanyauh is quite popular in Israel. Thus Bill Clinton has failed miserably. The only thing he has left is to go into dishonest statements. Well Bill Clinton has become another Jimmy Carter, a liar a liar. What really gets me is that these politicians don,t read the speeches in Arabic of Arafat, Abbas, and so on. In Arabic they attack and denigrate Israel and the Jews and America. Or they know it and simply ignore them. BHO once made a meek comment to Abbas to 'reduce' the hatred propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Abbas ignore the advise. At the end of the day Abbas and groupies are mortal enemies of Israel. Thus Israel, and the Jews, should be ready at any time to defend themselves. Israel should stop giving jobs to Palestinians. Let the Palestinians build their State by themselves. Let them cooperate with their Moslem and Arab countries, Jordan,Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait from where they were expelled during Arafat siding wit Iraq. Let the Palestinians work with their 'brothers'." OK. Notice, for instance, that apart from some typos with commas/apostrophes and some odd syntax that suggests a non-native speaker there is nothing wrong with this piece of writing. Notice the idiomatic "What really gets me . . ." formulation. Observe the expert handling of the sentence structure in "Bill Clinton thought, and certainly advised, that . . ." Notice, too, the fairly expert use of quotes around "reduce" and "brothers" to suggest an ironic distancing from the terms as used in their original contexts. Noga argued a few days ago that Chuch obviously had some psychiatric issues and that I shouldn't have expressed my opinion of him in the way I did. I said that I was unsure whether the entire Chuch personality wasn't just a fake -- a kind of high-powered sabotage-trolling, so to speak. She convinced me I was wrong, but finding this piece from 5-6 months ago makes me reconsider yet again.

- ironyroad

March 3, 2012 at 4:35pm

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

JAIMECHUCH is not crazy, but he is deranged. Point is that no one should take anything he says seriously.

- nr106646

March 3, 2012 at 5:11pm

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

People should email the editors of TNR and tell them to keep an eye on Chuch.

- nr106646

March 3, 2012 at 5:19pm

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

ironyroad. Kudos for finding my blog and your analysis of the English of a foreign born lad. To tell you the truth I did not read your comments that later noga referred to. However you refer to psychiatric issues. Of course it is obvious you know nothing about psychiatry. It is standard procedure that when somebody looses an argument resorts to call the conquering adversary crazy, meshugener, loco, Monsieur foo and such. Now I will analyze you. You are good at grammar. However when you go out of grammar are below average in making comments. In one of your blogs you stated very wrongly that I was demonizing Obama, that I had call you a vermin. I assure you I never called you a vermin. I called others a vermin like vicious anti Israel roidubouloi. You appear to me like a gentle very old man. I respect your correcting my English, you always respond in a polite manner. But there is a sort of disorientation in your comments outside grammar. I am not sure how you feel about Israel. It is clear you are pro Obama and you have good company: former New York mayor Koch , Israel president Shimon Peres, Israel defense minister Ehud Barak . Thus in your case the psychiatric condition is senility. In the case of noga is simply meanness. She is a very angry mean person, insulting. This is the psychiatric condition called empathy deficiency syndrome. She can be treated for it, although at her old age it is too late. And

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 5:21pm

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

nr not just rated go ahead I take the challenge bigoted bastard.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 5:22pm

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

I am sure nr. Not rated you and arnon will be the first to be expelled from TNR. Bigoted discriminatory haters of Israel.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 5:24pm

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

My initial comment would be that the person who wrote the Chuch contribution above can't be the person who wrote the Sept 28 2011 comment, or rather, that the person who wrote the above comment appears to be trying to maintain an online persona of a certain type. The Sept 28 comment is more "natural" in the sense of an unconscious fluency, and such fluency tends to persist. It's extremely odd to write "Bill Clinton thought, and certainly advised, that BHO and Hillary's malevolent treatment of Nethanyauh will bring him down." and then six months later to write "However when you go out of grammar are below average in making comments." It's possible, however, that the earlier text had some editorial assistance, and the current Chuch manifestation is working without it.

- ironyroad

March 3, 2012 at 5:40pm

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

ironyroad let me put it more clearly. Your expertise is grammar. When you diversify towards analyzing events you show ineptitude, sorry to say. I never demonized BHO, I never called you a vermin. nr106646. I went to look for your postings. In the four more recommended groups. I found only two, besides your only two above. A total of four.They were exclusively attacks on my persona, with the strong desire to see me disappear. Then in you coward treachery you are asking for somebody else to email TNR to keep an eye on me. If they do they will keep an eye on you, an eye on inferior turret arnon. Besides MP already posted his acceptance of this kind of dialogue. In particular most of the bloggers demonize MP with the out of hand viscousness attacking his persona mostly exclusively. Is this ok with you nr106646? If this is ok nr106646, what makes you besides a lost case sadness, bigot, discriminatory etc

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 6:08pm

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

ironyroad let me put it more clearly. Your expertise is grammar. When you diversify towards analyzing events you show ineptitude, sorry to say. I never demonized BHO, I never called you a vermin. nr106646. I went to look for your postings. In the four more recommended groups. I found only two, besides your only two above. A total of four.They were exclusively attacks on my persona, with the strong desire to see me disappear. Then in you coward treachery you are asking for somebody else to email TNR to keep an eye on me. If they do they will keep an eye on you, an eye on inferior turret arnon. Besides MP already posted his acceptance of this kind of dialogue. In particular most of the bloggers demonize MP with the out of hand viscousness attacking his persona mostly exclusively. Is this ok with you nr106646? If this is ok nr106646, what makes you besides a lost case sadness, bigot, discriminatory etc

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 6:08pm

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

"Then in you coward treachery you are asking for somebody else to email TNR to keep an eye on me. If they do they will keep an eye on you, an eye on inferior turret arnon." They can keep an eye me and anyone else they like as long as they an eye on an old hateful fool like you, Chuch. You have insulted more people more often than all other posters put together.

- nr106646

March 3, 2012 at 6:57pm

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

nr106646 old jackass. Since you stand for nothingness but just attacking me deserves to be ignored. Don't be a coward and hide behind others. You are just old deleterious dreck. Ich hove you indrerd. Kiss ass with inferior arnon. You deserve each other.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 7:08pm

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

Anyone here is better than you, old Chuch. I prefer talking to Arnon, Roid, basman, skhan, ironyroad, and almost anyone else. You are a disgusting old man. I have already sent one email asking the editors to put quarantine your posts. They add nothing to any discussion. I hope they first put you on probation and banish you after three offenses.

- nr106646

March 3, 2012 at 7:25pm

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

Ironyroad: I remain sceptical about your reading of Chuch. You are right that he comes off as much more coherent in the para you quote but the flurry and agitation in the subsequent comments would suggest an unstable personality. There might be medication involved and its effects. It could go either way. In some cases, medication can render the person calmer and more coherent. In other cases, the opposite occurs. We would need a bona fide psychiatrist to look at the evidence and pronounce. If you are right, then we are dealing with a devilishly clever, manipulative poster who has an unusual concentration power. This is not my impression. It just doesn't compute, that's all. A super intelligent person like that would have a slightly better judgment about the age and beauty of posters around here, etc etc :) What I recommend is to just keep a distance. Skip his comments.

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 7:56pm

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

noga1 "Ironyroad: I remain sceptical about your reading of Chuch. You are right that he comes off as much more coherent in the para you quote but the flurry and agitation in the subsequent comments would suggest an unstable personality." I agree with this. Still I don't see him as completely crazy. One of his problems is a lack of control. He gets angry )not just when people disagree with him but also when he is ignored) and then he starts barking out like a beagle on speed. I recommend people just ignore him.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 8:00pm

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

nr106646 I read all of your posters I had ignored before on MP Iranian column. You posted about a dozen comments, all more superficial than most, usually angry comments. Surprisingly you did not criticize a character , Packard, that posted over 20 postings exclusively attacking me . I ignored this guy concluding he was a paid Palestinian ( Iranian ) blogger. You live in Buffalo, probably buried under a ton of snow. Good that you took the guts, since you appear to be a coward old jackass, and send an email to TNR, about me. I am looking forward to describe your bigotry and discrimination. Your lack of intestinal fortitude is very evident in all of your blogs. Just angry criticism of everybody else. Finally you decided to concentrate on me. Why because, like in the case of arnon, you can not stand I am smarter than you, and that my English has a foreign extraction. Hence your bigotry and discrimination. This is demonstrated that you never blog about the issues you are superficial and shallow and just attack fellow bloggers. You should learn from me, K2K, noga, roidubouloi. But you are too ignorant, bigoted and resounding failure. I avoided you in the past, and was a good decision. I will ignore you in the future, you are a waste of time.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 8:00pm

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

It wasn't just the flurry and agitation, although I agree they are present, but the noticeable discrepancy between then and now as regards the ability to use English effectively at the sentence level. I agree, though, that it would take almost superhuman concentration to maintain the pretense (if it is one) and it's not even clear what the motive would be. Winning hearts and minds it ain't!

- ironyroad

March 3, 2012 at 8:22pm

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

noga1 I already described your psychiatric condition, empathy deficiency syndrome. I consider your putting down people a grave vile part of your personality. Your usage of calling yourself nova(Venus in Hebrew) a lack of self esteem. But empathy deficiency syndrome, read about by googling, makes you unable to relate with kindness to people. Destroys all your posters defending Israel with roidubouloi. As I said before you bring the worst in people. On the other hand roidubouloi with his articulate blogs against Israel , posting distorted facts, brings the best in people. Makes me post the honest facts as counter arguments that are pro Israel. roidubouloi does not put down people unless you unnerve him, and I side with roid knowing you noga. And I am pro Israel, anti Iran. Bloggers that put down people like noga and arnon, I consider evil. Unfortunately my reactions to evil people is also evil. But I have to defend myself. I have been practicing with success avoiding nova and avoiding arnon, there is too bad karma to be wasted on such individuals. The same goes for nr106646 whose bigoted negativity and superficial shallowness, should be buried forever under the snows of Buffalo.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 8:23pm

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

Irony, what do you make of the Chuch keeps using the same epithets for all the posters. With roi it's" roi..dent. Galicianer dishonest self hatred Jew..." with skhan it's "asskahn" and so on? To me the lonely looser comes up with name handles to help him remember the different posters. The old curmudgeon doesn't seem to vary his insults. He may be suffering from the beginnings of Alzheimer's.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 8:24pm

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

"Unfortunately my reactions to evil people is also evil." What an understatement. An example of chew's evil. "I have been practicing with success avoiding nova and avoiding arnon, there is too bad karma to be wasted on such individuals. The same goes for nr106646 whose bigoted negativity and superficial shallowness, should be buried forever under the snows of Buffalo." What a joke this man is.

- Packard

March 3, 2012 at 8:28pm

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

ironyroad you are a gentle grammar corrector. I appreciate it. Stick to it. Do not deviate in becoming nova1's evil tool. She suffers from empty deficiency syndrome rendering her evil putting down people, which she enjoys greatly, is attached to her lack of self esteem. Like in the case of arnon, reassures this people that somehow makes them important, that the way to go is to insult and put down people. You see when you start to be surrounded by intelligent Jews, and you realize you are not up to standards, your reassurance is to insult to draw attention. My criticism of arnon has succeeded in making him behave more civil. Not with me though. So you win some you loose some. Unfortunately nova1 is a rotund failure. Although she has been avoiding roidubouloi lately.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 8:40pm

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

ironyroad you are a gentle grammar corrector. I appreciate it. Stick to it. Do not deviate in becoming nova1's evil tool. She suffers from empty deficiency syndrome rendering her evil putting down people, which she enjoys greatly, is attached to her lack of self esteem. Like in the case of arnon, reassures this people that somehow makes them important, that the way to go is to insult and put down people. You see when you start to be surrounded by intelligent Jews, and you realize you are not up to standards, your reassurance is to insult to draw attention. My criticism of arnon has succeeded in making him behave more civil. Not with me though. So you win some you loose some. Unfortunately nova1 is a rotund failure. Although she has been avoiding roidubouloi lately.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 8:40pm

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

I noticed that the paid Palestinian ( Iranian) blogger is back. I don't read him. I don't waste my time with this character.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 8:42pm

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

Chuch: My name. Noga, has nothing to do with any pretensions to Venusian beauty. It was simply a name given to me by my mother. I'm pretty sure she didn't know of the Venus connection. She was thinking about light. As "noga" in Hebrew is just a word that means white light, the light of the stars and the moon, not the light of the sun which is "OR".

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 8:57pm

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

arnon: "what do you make of the Chuch keeps using the same epithets for all the posters?" I'm puzzled, to be honest. I agree that it does read like some sort of marker for individuals to keep them identifiable. I keep having a sneaking suspicion that there's something I'm not seeing that's in plain sight (rather like that Edgar Allan Poe story, can't remember the name, but the one where the secret document is "hidden" by being simply thrown onto a desk full of papers). Was there a particular moment when our friend went from being just a slightly weird and unpredictable poster to a kind of overflowing sewer of hatred?

- ironyroad

March 3, 2012 at 9:47pm

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

"The Purloined Letter"

- noga1

March 3, 2012 at 9:49pm

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

ironyroad stick to grammar otherwise you are half witted. But talk to a donkey is like talking to the wall. Flush it flush it.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 9:58pm

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

Answer to the puzzle . Savant syndrome excel in one area in contrast to overall limitations. Thus we are faced with two individuals communicating one is an empathy deficiency infirm the other a savant. And indeed they communicate one says repeatedly the same thing, the other just acknowledges . Unless you encounter the whining amoral nihilist despising religion paranoiac about his decending into dementia. Praying to the almighty will do him a lot of good.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 3, 2012 at 10:25pm

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

"Was there a particular moment when our friend went from being just a slightly weird and unpredictable poster to a kind of overflowing sewer of hatred?" I don't know. I became aware of him one day a few weeks ago when he let loose one of his crazy tirades against me. I tried to scroll back to see what had started it and I found a comment of mine, I believe it was to Roid, when i suggested him to avoid Chuch because of his inveterate attacks on him. (It could be that i had read other attacks by him, but I read so many here that I can't remember. I have been known to attack posters myself from time to time.) Anyway, after I read his attack I responded and it didn't take me long to realize that he wasn't your normal poster earnest but with an occasional streak of mischievousness. However, it was only after he viciously attacked skhan, who posts (meadingly) biographical reactions but in a very diffident and innofenssive manner, for not responding to him that I thought him not just angry but actually deranged. My guess is that he is extremely lonely but that's not a cause (perhaps the effect) of madness. I decided not to read his post and told him so. He is not hard to avoid since he never said anything I wanted or needed to know.

- arnon1

March 3, 2012 at 10:36pm

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

arnon the turret syndrome inferior insulting bloggers. When he is insulted then shouts murder and plays innocent. What kind of maladroits have here. He is at a lower level and fills inferior has to compensate by insulting. I have corrected him, now he is careful and somewhat more civil. I don't expect too much more from him. Then we have nr106646 . He considers this site like if he was the owner. Criticizes everybody . Also insults and gives orders. This old jackass should show civility. All of his blogs are only personal attacks, no substance. Retrograde from Buffalo buried in tons of snow. An unfortunate looser. Pathetic picture full of negative karma. is this what old age is all about? Angry old men and woman. What we are seeing is a disappearing act. Bitterness and sadness, the galut exemplified. A sad picture. And there is no return, no salvation. Just a bunch of old ignorant bickering fools. And at the top arnon and nr106646.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 12:21am

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

Oh shut the fuck up, creepy Jaime C. You are at the top of any list of old farts with tourette syndrome. I hope nr and others get you banned from TNR.

- Packard

March 4, 2012 at 12:34am

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

"On the other hand roidubouloi with his articulate blogs against Israel , posting distorted facts, brings the best in people." Like it or not it's a fair statement. I am in agreement.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 4, 2012 at 8:33am

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

Then can we not get the best of you, makover? Skip the personal insults that have become routine and give us your must cogent and persuasive responses. The dialogue and our collective thinking on these subjects would benefit greatly.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 9:12am

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

One has to wonder, then, why long articulate posts against Israel, based on distorted facts, bring out the best in people.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 9:21am

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

Those who believe the facts are distorted and have the capacity must then marshal their facts, evidence, and arguments in response. Sometimes they may succeed; other times they don't and either concede the point (rarely it is true) or make evident to others that the facts, evidence and arguments are not on their side, despite their profound feelings. Those who lack the capacity quickly become frustrated and resort to personal insults and such. Then we see that they lack the capacity, also despite their profound feelings.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 10:28am

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

Someone above raised the question whether the government of Israel can be trusted. Good question. Here is a section of the Road Map for Peace: Settlements GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001. Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements). The official Israeli response, its acceptance of the Road Map with comments, includes this comment: 9. There will be no involvement with issues pertaining to the final settlement. Among issues not to be discussed: settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts), the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem, and all other matters whose substance relates to the final settlement. __________________________ It is quite clear that Israel accepted the settlement freeze and removal of illegal outposts as set forth in the Road Map. What then shall we make of the word of the government of Israel? Can it be trusted? Was there even a moment in time when Israel moved to fulfill its commitment, or was it a dead letter from the moment Israel rhetorically accepted it?

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 10:42am

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

Now, those who believe these are distorted facts (taken from the documents posted by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on its website) can have at it.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 10:43am

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

No. What I believe is that articulateness is a kind of beauty and people often though by no means always and not all of them, mistake beauty for truth. It's a phenomenon well known in translation. A translator who has writerly talents and unscrupulous intellectual ethics does not mind distorting and misrepresenting the translated material, whether for effect or for politics. Readers who have no access to the original or are too lazy about checking, tend to accept the translation as authentic and true. It also has to do with the way in which a position is stated. Many readers have very little patience with nuance especially when it goes against their gut preferences. So when a message is kept simple, phrased in elegant language which gives it an aura of authority, they tend to accept it as true. Even when the message makes no sense, as in Orwell's ministry of truth, which in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 10:43am

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

Is it only falsehood that is expressed in this manner? Surely than we are not supposed to reject a message as false merely because it is expressed simply, articulately, and accessibly, are we? If a message is believe to be false, nothing, certainly nothing here, prevents anyone from marshaling contrary evidence, checking the original as it were, quoting it and citing to it. Or are we also to accept that the mere denunciation of something as untrue, if expressed with sufficient emotion, is self-proving?

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 11:11am

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

I've just listened to Obama's address to AIPAC. What can I say? i think this guy says it all: http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-obama-and-israelagain.html "Remark by the editor: this is not to say I disagree with the above, just to mention (again) that the day I'll believe what a politician says is yet to come. And that there is an equally strong opinion to the contrary of what the POTUS says and what Jeffrey G. believes. We shall see. "

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 12:18pm

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

The real question is can the Palestinians be trusted. Our articulate fellow blogger hides the subject. His dishonest bias is more than obvious. This time around the Arabs will not be involved. They always violated any international agreement. But can the Palestinians be trusted? The answer is no. The example from Hizbullah/Lebanon and Hamas/Gaza showering missiles at Israel, and the terroristic attacks by Arafat after the Oslo accords is another example. But our articulate fellow blogger does not mention these facts. Can Iran be trusted? Again no. Thus a frustrated diplomat is distorting all the time. He brings the best on the opposition.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 12:42pm

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

The UN agreement after the 2006 Israel Hizbullah Lebanon war, stipulated no more arms in Lebanon. It is 2012, there are 55,000 missile launchers in southern Lebanon all planted in villages of civilians, in case of war the Hizbullah/Iranian strategy is to have maximum civilian casualties. Then have a Goldstone type international UN report condemning Israel and barely mentioning Hizbullah. They did it in the 2008 Gaza war with Hamas barely mentioned, Israel was viciously condemned until Goldstone apologized admitting he had been duped by the international UN. Yes our articulate frustrated internationalist posts foolishness, and brings the best on his honest opposition .

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 12:57pm

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

And above all can our articulate blogger, frustrated diplomat, be trusted? The answer is no. Keep the faith.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 1:02pm

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

The question at the heart of this discussion thread is: "Can Israel Trust the United States When It Comes to Iran?" Roi offers a red herring (or oh look cows) dragging into this question the issue of settlements. There is no link, none whatsoever, between Iran's genocidal threats against Israel and its galloping towards possession of nukes to Israel being a good little girl obeying US wishes about its settlement policies. Most wisely, Obama has refrained from making any such linkage in his speech to AIPAC. And it was a linkage he did try to promulgate at a certain point in the past. He seems to have discarded it, maybe realizing it was doing more harm than good, for the peace process. It was a very good speech Obama made. He was actually speaking to Israelis more than he was speaking to American Jews. Perhaps it is the speech that he should have made directly after his Cairo speech. Perhaps he even means it. David Ignatius: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/decoding-obamas-message-on-iran/2012/03/02/gIQAhtcSnR_blog.html "The Obama comments that interested me most were the ones in which he sought to make commitments about future U.S. action—and to explain why they were sound policy choices for the United States, not just for Israel. That’s a crucial part of his messaging to Iran and the world: To show that he isn’t being jammed by Israel into these promises, but is making them because they’re rational and sensible for the United States."

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 1:26pm

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

noga1. Excellent posting. Thank you.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 1:35pm

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

The problem is that the simplyjews.blogspot's "equally strong opinion" link is to a long screed that includes, for example, this: "And as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. President Obama was the first U.S. president to preside over a meeting of the UN Security Council in September 2009, and he personally took the opportunity of controlling the Council agenda to tie nuclear non-proliferation together with nuclear disarmament. His move had the predictable effect of setting back non-proliferation efforts by giving Iran one more excuse to delay, while disarming America moved to center stage. The sanctions regime belatedly adopted by the Council has been an incontrovertible failure." Politely: this is the writing of either a fool or a liar. (1) All evidence points to the Obama administration being strikingly more focused on the Iranian threat than its predecessor and I would simply ask anyone who disagrees to produce one item of proof (even circumstantial) that would point to the Bush administration doing anything about Iran (other than doing Teheran the favor, brokered by Ahmed Chalabi, of removing their biggest rival in the region, that is). Normally I don't believe in shouting so in order to be understood more clearly, but this once (for the somewhat dim among us): IF IRAN IS MOVING INEXORABLE TOWARD NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEY WERE DOING IT DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOO (2) Furthermore, no real long-term policy regarding nuclear weapons reduction can be merely local, and there are national security positives for the U.S. in controlling weapons proliferation worldwide -- or to put it another way, as Obama said back in 2008, the president has to sometimes take more than one issue into consideration at the same time. (3) There is NO conclusive finding possible at this time to determine whether or not the sanctions regime has failed or indeed will fail. Indeed, even if it's the liar at work here, he's a fool as well, because he is inventing hostilities for the President Obama and his administration that they do not actually share. This is like someone going out of their way to alienate someone else whose assistance they are complaining is not being made available in the way they would like. Which is not a recipe for future success.

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 1:50pm

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

sorry -- INEXORABLY

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 1:51pm

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

The unfortunate fact is that Obama is very unpopular in Israel. However the USA is very popular in Israel. The question should be Can Israel trust Obama when it comes to Iran. Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak Consider Obama the best USA President friend of Israel ever. Have they been mistaken in the past? Well yes. Shimon Peres with the Oslo accords, and trusting Arafat. Ehud Barak with the peace offers to Yasser Arafat. Arafat unleashed the intifada and terrorist attacks that killed and maimed thousands of Israeli civilians. Ariel Sharon that never trusted Arafat put a stop, made Arafat a prisoner in his Ramallah mansion. Arafat got sick and died in Paris, France from complications of AIDS. The terroristic attacks lead for Israel building the barrier, and the continuous capturing of terrorists in the liberated territories . But our articulate blogger distorting information and promulgating failed international agreements, will soon be posting his canards always anti Israel.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 1:58pm

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

The question whether the US can trust Israel is certainly relevant to the question whether Israel should trust the US. My answer to both questions was, no. They can each be trusted only to pursue their interests, but owe it to each other as partners to be clear as to where their interests lie. Each will press upon the other to alter its conduct in the interests of the presser. That is what states do. That is what Israel is doing now. I don't think it will work. Moreover, I care not whether Israel trusts the US. Why should we care? Do we depend on Israel? Rather more important whether the US trusts Israel and it has not much reason to do so. Nor do I think any American ought to care whether Obama is popular in Israel. Israelis don't vote here, although to listen to some you would think they do. If Obama succeeds in determining the course of events with respect to Iran, I am quite satisfied and not much worried about how he accomplishes that. As long as the kvetchers do not succeed in moving US policy, be they Israeli, up to and including Netanyahu, or the 14,000 gathered in DC for the AIPAC convention, or Martin Peretz et Cie, all of whose primary concern is Israel and not America, they are welcome to kvetch.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 2:16pm

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

And if, by appealing directly to the sensibilities of Israelis, Obama succeeds in undermining Israeli support for action contrary to that of the US, good for him. That's the kind of thing he is supposed to do in the interests of the United States. Same when he makes speeches addressed to the Moslem world. In neither case are they for the purpose of making Israelis happy; they are for the purpose of advancing the interests of the United States. Farshtaist?

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 2:24pm

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

It is clear and you know it. That Obama wanted to have a dialogue with Iran and in spite of his friendly attitude Iran rejected him. Obama was friendly to Syria, results massacres. Obama did not support the uprising demonstrations by the Iranian people against their dictators. Obama has been ultra slow in applying sanctions on Iran. Obama has not condemned at all the Iranian militarization of Lebanon and Gaza Hizbullah/Hamas clients. Obama has not condemned the Iranian involvements in the Syrian massacres. Obama has not condemned the Iranian involvement in massacres in Iraq. The Bush administration condemned Iran and called it part of the axis of evil. The Iraqi war unleashed the freedom of the Kurds and the Shia which are Arab Shias not too friendly to the Persian Iranian Shias. Thus articulate blogger your position is innocuous and a failed one. The bottom line is can Iran be trusted, and the answer is no. Can our articulate blogger be trusted, and the answer is again no. But most importantly can Obama be trusted. Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak say yes. It appears that Netanyahu is saying, and I put words into his mouth, may be. Are they meeting this week to reassure each other, or to work out details for the bombing of Iran. Nobody knows.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 2:25pm

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

"The problem is that the simplyjews.blogspot's "equally strong opinion" link is to a long screed that includes" Why is this a problem? Doesn't one strong opinion deserve its counter strong opinion? And how do we distinguish between a strong opinion and a screed? Because you don't like the opinion? Snoop at least tries to be fair and provide two contrasting, equally strong positions. Or perhaps he just wished to show that not all Jewish American journalists with good credentials are suckups. Snoop is somewhat wily in that respect. Which is why like him:)

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 2:31pm

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

The question is whether undermining Israeli support for action is contrary to the interests of United States or interests of Obama's reelection campaign. I think that US interests are much more closely aligned with Israel in this matter than anybody, including roid is willing to admit. Just listened to the President speech. Very impressive. If I was Iranian leader today, I would be very, very concerned. noga:"just to mention (again) that the day I'll believe what a politician says is yet to come". Can Obama be trusted 100%? Who knows. Countries break treaties and agreements on regular basis, even the US. Just ask the Indians. Still, I think this is a significant speech and step in the right direction.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

March 4, 2012 at 2:38pm

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

To the extent that American and Israeli interests are aligned and recognized by both to be aligned, that's ducky with me. To the extent that, notwithstanding the alignment of interests, Israel wants to go one way and the US the other, I want things to go the US way, unless I were persuaded that the US is wrong. Right now, I think Obama's choices are the correct ones and I expect him to use his power to align Israel's actions with his own. I don't think he has to make promises to do this, and he should not. We don't need to have the Israeli tail wagging the US dog not least because the power is not that of Israel and Israel is not particularly interested in the other responsibilities, etc. that accompany US power. It is only interested in seeing US power deployed to its own benefit, much too narrow a focus for US power and authority. That's why I prefer to have the president of the United States calling the shots. Simple as that.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 3:04pm

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

"Doesn't one strong opinion deserve its counter strong opinion?" Noga, in a debating society competition, yes -- but here we are also trying to assess the value of opinions in relation to the real world, and I believe that an opinion is not 100% justified by its own strength. The "problem" is the content of the opinion, not its mere existence. I got a bit lost in all the layers of linking but the "screed" (ok, scratch that, call it something else), the piece at issue argues a case that I believe to be factually nonsense, not just an alternate interpretation from mine that I don't share.

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 3:06pm

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

Who said anything about trusting Iran? What does that have to do with anything?

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 3:06pm

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

This remainds me of an experience I lived through. In 1987 I went to the havurah get together at Princeton. This havurah indulged in Jewish studies, group discussions, was secular and religious, used kosher food , observed the Shabath. We were around 100 participants. Was a very pleasant get together, lectures about Kabbalah , Zionism, Talmud, music. On Shabath night we got together for a seminar on USA Israel discussion. The leaders were young very intelligent. A question was posed to the audience about Pollard the American Jew working at the defense department that was caught spying and passing secrets to Israel. He was accused of treason and imprisoned up to today . The question to the audience was should Pollard be considered a traitor and remain in prison or should he be set free. The bulk of the audience were for Pollard to remain in jail as a USA traitor. A handful were for Pollard to be set free, me included. I thought after all USA and Israel were friends. And Israel is constantly under attack by it's enemies. Nowadays the double citizenship are routine. Although I would think that the majority of American Jews would be for Pollard to remain in jail. Yes USA and Israel are friends. But realistically when the cayenne pepper hits the fan, each goes for número uno, number one. No surprises here.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 3:12pm

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

Screed? I dunno. But I thought the Bayefsky piece was pretty much garbage all the way through, from start to finish, unless you think that the only job of the president of the United States is to be the prime minister of Israel. Admittedly, Obama is not doing a good job of the lattter, although I would wish him to be tougher on Israel which would be an even worse job from the point of view of such as Bayefsky. A huge mistake for Obama to pick a public fight over settlement freeze (which freeze would that have been anyway, no. 99? nothing seems to stick) and then not be prepared to do what was necessary to get what he wanted. Israel should look to its own back and stop depending on the US to shelter it and protect the policies that leave it isolated. Join the world.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 3:14pm

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

Articulate blogger do not be mischievously naive. I said can Iran be trusted. If you think it is not relevant , it says it all where you stand. Iran is a mortal enemy of Israel, is a mortal enemy of USA, mortal enemy of the Sunnis . Maybe you should move to Iran and help their international diplomatic efforts. Although you are doing a good job for them here.

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 3:21pm

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

Although there was this discussion in the Knesset when economic conditions were rough sometime ago. Should Israel declare war against the USA, Israel will be defeated and the USA will help Israel to improve across the board as has usually done with those it defeats, Germany , Japan. Then a dissenting voice of an unassuming member was heard, but what happens if we win?

- JAIMECHUCH

March 4, 2012 at 3:36pm

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

03/04/2012 - 12:18pm EDT | noga1 "I've just listened to Obama's address to AIPAC. What can I say? i think this guy says it all...." Why do you agree with it?

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 3:37pm

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

I agree with snoopy when he says: "the day I'll believe what a politician says is yet to come. "

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 3:45pm

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

I have heard Obama's speech and I also just read a transcript of the speech. His sincerity is beyond doubt. I trust in his his commitment not to let Iran build nuclear weapons. However, what impressed me the most was his comment about the violence and mayhem in Syria and his skepticism, about Egyptian efforts at "democratization." "Of course, peace is hard to achieve. There’s a reason why it’s remained elusive for six decades. The upheaval and uncertainty in Israel’s neighborhood makes it that much harder - from the horrific violence raging in Syria, to the transition in Egypt."

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 3:45pm

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

noga1 "I agree with snoopy when he says: "the day I'll believe what a politician says is yet to come. "" He wasn't speaking as a ;politician he was speaking as the President. A politician words mean very little, the words of a President are meaningful. btw: Not believing what politicians say I suppose you also don't believe them when they attack Israel, right? Or is it only when they say they support Israel that you don't believe them? Finally, do you believe Republican politicians more than Democratic ones?

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 3:50pm

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

Ironyroad: "the piece at issue argues a case that I believe to be factually nonsense, not just an alternate interpretation from mine that I don't share." Can you point to a specific example?

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 3:55pm

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

"Finally, do you believe Republican politicians more than Democratic ones?" "the day I'll believe what a politician says is yet to come. "

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 3:56pm

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

I don't believe anything they say just because they say it. I assume it to be less rather than more truthful. However, some things they say are consistent with past behavior and where they sit on the political spectrum, however many dimensions it is assumed to have, and some things have greater tension with who and where they are. I am much more inclined to believe that they genuinely believe the things that comport with who they are than the things they don't. Withal, since what they say is invariably an attempt at manipulating somebody, I am much more interested in where I think they are going, whom it is that they are trying to move in what direction, and how successful or unsuccessful the rhetoric is, than I am in the words. The words on a given day are but a single datum.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 4:43pm

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

"Can you point to a specific example?" Yes. The first sentence, and I already dealt with it above: "And as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons." This is either a deliberate falsehood or something written by a fool. The statement contains two wildly inaccurate assertions: one, that using the UN to confront Iran is somehow directly linked to an "inexorable" move on Iran's part to obtain nuclear weapons, and two, that this inexorable movement only began in 2009 under Obama. The first is complete nonsense -- indeed, literally it makes no sense. As far as the latter goes, I think it is easily shown that the Obama administration has moved faster in three years to deal with the Iranian threat than the Bush administration did in eight. Let's say that one can have different opinions on the value of the UN route. But anyone who writes as if Iranian policy was some glittering achievement under Bush and has only faltered under Obama writes themselves out of the discussion as anyone to be taken seriously.

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 6:20pm

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

"Let's say that one can have different opinions on the value of the UN route. But anyone who writes as if Iranian policy was some glittering achievement under Bush and has only faltered under Obama writes themselves out of the discussion as anyone to be taken seriously." I'm in no mood to get into a quarrel over this but I did go back to Bayefsky's article and nowhere did I find that she "writes as if Iranian policy was some glittering achievement under Bush". She is concentrating on Obama's mistakes, in her opinion. She counts three: Joining the UN Human Rights Council, without making sure that it functions as a UN Human Rights Council FOR ALL NATIONS, the president’s UNGA speech of 2010 and his handling at the UNSC of the aftermath of the flotilla disaster. And: "as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. President Obama was the first U.S. president to preside over a meeting of the UN Security Council in September 2009, and he personally took the opportunity of controlling the Council agenda to tie nuclear non-proliferation together with nuclear disarmament. His move had the predictable effect of setting back non-proliferation efforts by giving Iran one more excuse to delay, while disarming America moved to center stage." On all these issues I am of half mind as to their indicating a particular hostility towards Israel. I do agree with her on this: "Israel and the civilized world, in the crosshairs of this leading state sponsor of terrorism and its genocidal ambitions, are the real victims and any claim to the contrary would be a lie — not a distraction. To suggest that Israel will be responsible for the economic costs of seriously slowing or ending Iran’s race towards nuclear weapons places the shoe exactly on the wrong foot, and diminishes the much higher cost of Iranian victory." Obama's AIPAC speech did not make this point. What it means is anybody's guess. This is an election year and for some reason the Jewish vote seems to matter. So as snoopy suggested, one should take any such speeches with a few grains of salt.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 6:47pm

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

Noga, you asked me what's factually false. This: "as for Iran, President Obama’s use of the United Nations has moved the country in only one direction — inexorably closer to obtaining nuclear weapons." is factually/historically false (I think also malicious, but leave that for the moment as it's not the main point) for the reasons cited above. It seems to me somewhat moot whether you or I agree or disagree with her because that would imply a difference of interpretation is the problem. It's not the problem.

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 7:02pm

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

I think it is a matter of interpretation. She reads Obama's UN manouvres vis a vis Iran's search for the bomb as not only useless but counter-productive. You think such a reading is not possible. It is certain that Obama's UN manouvres cannot be thus characterized.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 7:12pm

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

Let me say it again, so as to remove any possibility of ambiguity: I think it is a matter of interpretation. She reads Obama's UN manouvres vis a vis Iran's search for the bomb as not only useless but counter-productive. You think such a reading is not possible, that it is a matter of certainty and factuality that Obama's UN manouvres cannot be thus characterized.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 7:14pm

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

roidubouloi "I don't believe anything they say just because they say it." Sorry, but I disagree. I take Obama at his word. He wants to stop Iran's development of a nuclear bomb. This is out interest and had there been no Israel our policy would be the same. Moreover, this is an election year but the elections are a lifetime away. Lots will happen between now and November and if Obama was fibbing it will become apparent soon enough and he knows it. Obama has committed the US to stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is our policy.

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 7:30pm

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

BTW, ironyroad, if you read the comments at Simply Jews you'll see that a couple of commenters share your opinion. If it's any consolation :) As you may have noticed, "Simply Jews" is an irreverent blog. They like to have fun there as may be deduced from their version of the Israeli flag.

- noga1

March 4, 2012 at 8:09pm

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

"I take Obama at his word. He wants to stop Iran's development of a nuclear bomb. This is out interest and had there been no Israel our policy would be the same." I believe it because it is clearly in our interest, not because he says it. Just what he is prepared to do about it and under what circumstances remains quite ambiguous, as it should be. _____________________ I would hardly say Bayefsky's article is "irreverent." It is a bad smear job, and pretty much full of crap from beginning to end, indeed so poorly argued I don't even think it worth taking issue with. It consists of naming all sorts of UN-related actions that Bayefsky doesn't like and then asserting causal links without the slightest effort to establish them. Self-refuting except for the true believers, such as the John Bolton crowd

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 9:43pm

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

roidubouloi: "I believe it because it is clearly in our interest, not because he says it." The "he" happens to be our President. Even is something much less important (to me) voters voted out a President who broke his word. Remember's Bush' "read my lips?" It came back to haunt him when he ran for re-election against Clinton. Voters still make distinctions between a politician and The President. Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans not declared war on us Roosevelt would have had a hard time taking us to war against the axis powers.

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 10:04pm

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

It almost goes without saying that those who want Iran bombed sooner rather than later want to back Obama into a corner and then have him back us into a corner where it is difficult to do otherwise. He, on the other hand, is trying to get that crowd off his back by sounding tough enough while not limiting his room for maneuver. To that end, he noted that nations that have given up nuclear weapons have not done so in response to prolonged attack. It is a fine and difficult line to walk, but I think he is walking it. If those who want Iran bombed hear this speech as implying that, good. I think he has left himself plenty of room for maneuver. Bush II made pompous declarations about Iran and nuclear arms and did nothing at all. That seems never to have come back to bite him. Raising or lowering taxes people get. The rest is always muddy and able to be muddied further.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 10:39pm

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

Whatever distinctions voters make, I don't believe a word any politician or political leader says just because he says it. I need to see who benefits and who is hurt, what the goal of the speech is, and then I can decide what the purpose of the rhetoric is and whether it is a feint or likely to foretell future action. I think this speech is for the purpose of getting pro-Israel pressure off his back without backing himself and us into a corner where we have limited policy options. He is doing a pretty good job of it given how hard that group is trying to back him and us into a corner.

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 10:43pm

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

We will disagree, then.

- arnon1

March 4, 2012 at 10:52pm

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

Noga, I hadn't noticed the flag but I went back and had a look. I also took a glance at the For Anti-Zionists page and it looks as if I might partly fit under the Anti-Occupationiks rubric -- although I regard myself as a Zionist sympathizer in the sense that I strongly believe that Israeli Jews (and other Israelis, come to that) are entitled to precisely as much nationalist foaming at the mouth as other nations claim for themselves. It's not about interpretations, sorry. It's about untrue assertions (whether intentional or not).

- ironyroad

March 4, 2012 at 10:53pm

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

Okay

- roidubouloi

March 4, 2012 at 11:04pm

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

I just wanted to add (for Noga, I mean) that you used to see yourself as an eagle-eyed spotter of disingenuousness. I think Bayefsky's piece is soaked in it. Of course she doesn't write "glittering achievement" about Bush, but her formulation clearly implies that ONLY the Obama administration's approach has enabled Iran to move "inexorably" etc etc, which offers, again, a choice -- either she is aware of its falsehood or she doesn't know what she's talking about. Iran was moving inexorably between 2001 and 2008 also, but the Bush administration was busier with other things. Obama has actually confronted the problem.

- ironyroad

March 5, 2012 at 1:04am

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

The basic problem with Bayefsky's piece, the disingenuousness with which it is rife, is the naming of policies she doesn't like and then attributing to them whatever consequences she wants in order to prove that the policies are objectionable. Except that she makes no case, ever, for any of the causal relationships, including the one to which ironyroad calls attention. This is deceitful and is what makes the piece a rancid attempt at smearing the administration.

- roidubouloi

March 5, 2012 at 1:53am

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

Exactly what options are on the table? The President's speech to AIPAC on Sunday did not remotely indicate the limits of his support. He promised everything and nothing. Such is the art of diplomacy. I for one do not believe U.S. personnel should participate in any pre-emptive strike on behalf of Israel, as Amos Yadlin requested in the pages of the NY Times last week. To put American forces in harm's way would elevate Israel's interests above those of the United States. The U.S. president should never put the needs of any foreign state first, be it Israel or anyone else. If that makes me a lame brain, so be it.

- drheingold

March 5, 2012 at 5:45am

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

"you used to see yourself as an eagle-eyed spotter of disingenuousness. I think Bayefsky's piece is soaked in it." This would have meant something if you had endorsed this view of myself. Since you don't, why bring it up? This is not about me. It is about an article whose very premises you find an abomination because it criticizes Obama's policies without any pretense at even-handedness. You don't seem to mind this kind of polemics at all when it comes from the other side. I don't wish to revisit our latest kerfuffle so let's just say that where Obama is concerned you can be just as disingenuous as Bayevski. As for Simply Jews: It is a sad day when you miss the genuine warning they alert you to, in the "Anti-Occupationiks" segment albeit in a satirical manner: "Occasionally the Jew haters adopt the language and partial ethics of the Anti-Occupation campaign. What usually gives them away, are a select number of terms, banners, and half truth stories. Their language is one of hate, some outright but mostly tacit. They will speak of Israel's politics and military tactics as Nazism, use words like Ethnic Cleansing, Apartheid and Mass Murder in macro detail, but are totally blind to such real world injustices where other countries are concerned. They use words like Hasbara (Hebrew for Information, Publicity, Explanation), the term coined for Israel's PR campaign, to explain the secret Jewish Plots for evil manipulation of the world as a whole, which is merely an up to date version extended version of the protocols "myth". " This characterization is not really meant for you and you should have been able to see it. I have to wonder why you rushed to identify yourself with that part of it. As I always say, anger makes people stupid, even when they are ironyroad. If it makes you happy to thus align yourself against my smart and hysterically funny friends at Simply Jews, and to miss the point, so be it.

- noga1

March 5, 2012 at 7:34am

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

Portrait of an ""Anti-Occupationiks" : http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-tolerance-shouldnt-stop-us-challenging-hatred-7499641.html "That the Baroness will now appear in the martyrology of those who suffer for their opposition to Israel goes without saying. Already, Mehdi Hasan, the New Statesman's senior political editor, has inscribed her name in the book of the righteous with as shabby a piece of disingenuousness as you will find. Where is the difference, he asks, between Baroness Tonge's proposal for a one-state solution – for that apparently was all it was – and, say, Elmud Olmert's warning that if the two-state solution founders, the State of Israel is finished. By this reasoning, there is nothing to choose between a dire prediction of disaster and the gleeful incitement of it. And the Baroness has only Israel's interests at heart. For her part, she insists her words were taken out of context and repeats that weary mantra that you can labour for the obliteration of Israel and not be an anti-Semite. To which the weary answer is, yes, but you can equally labour for the obliteration of Israel and be an anti-Semite. Hating Israel is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it doesn't grant automatic immunity from the charge of loathing Jews."

- noga1

March 5, 2012 at 8:12am

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

There is the one-state solution, which would mean the end of the Jewish state, the two-state solution, which would require Israel to recognize Palestinian sovereignty throughout what is now occupied territory and perhaps recognize some Palestinian right of return. And then there is the no-solution solution, which allows Israel to maintain the occupation, the settlements, and not accord political rights to the inhabitants of the West Bank who are de facto its citizens. Apartheid is not well-defined, but a situation in which some inhabitants have political rights and some do not, based on ethnicity, and some live under one set of laws and some under another, again based on ethnicity, surely cannot be said not to be apartheid. Is there any doubt about which of the three Netanyahu and the Likud prefer an toward which they constantly maneuver? They recognize that a certain level of military risk inheres in this, but think they can keep it within manageable bounds, seemingly in perpetuity, so long as the United States will play ball. To that end, periodic episodes where the existence of Israel may be said to hang in the balance are a useful part of the political drama. They help, indeed they may be crucial, to yoke the US to Israeli policy.

- roidubouloi

March 5, 2012 at 8:57am

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

Unfortunately, the perpetuation of this conflicts presents risks for the whole world.

- roidubouloi

March 5, 2012 at 8:58am

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

Noga, the thing about the identifying of the disingenuous in life is to do with you yourself, and not really with what I think about you. In general, I appreciate those critical qualities when they are directed at others but not when they are directed at me, so I was hoping you might direct them at Bayevsky. But it was not to be (sigh of regret). In any case, the problem is not that B. criticizes Obama's policies, but that she invents links between actions and consequences that simply don't exist. It's a sort of Salem witchcraft thing: "Obama went my barn this morning and suddenly my cow won't give any milk -- I'm just sayin'!" About the Simply Jews thing: as Wayne Booth once remarked, it would be very useful to have a print character or symbol for irony, especially as there are many cases where the context is ambiguous enough so that the irony cannot be stabilized by the reader. In Booth's argument, the irony creates an immediate rupture of the current frame for understanding in the reader's mind, but the situation is stablized when the reader identifies the nature of the author's statement and creates a new frame in which understanding is restored. As a Jane Austen reader, you'll know exactly what I mean. I assumed that the paragraph you quote, while keeping the satirical tone of the site, was not meant ironically in the sense that it means the opposite of what is said. I do get the satire (hence the satirical note in my reply), but my impression was not that the "Anti-Occuaptioninks" were being put in the same bucket as the Antisemits and and the Israel-haters, but rather than the latter were good at hiding themselves in the rhetorical clothing of the former. Is that a misreading? Gorgeous day today, chilly and breezy but a blue sky and fluffy clouds.

- ironyroad

March 5, 2012 at 12:45pm

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

Thank you for the lesson in irony, ironyroad. I'm content that you are not beyond self-ironization. It restores my faith in irony. The question still remains why, if you understood that the para about the anti-occupationiks, with whom the Elders have no particular quarrel, was just a preamble to the satirical view of the pseudo-antioccupationiks, why did you present yourself as a would-be target of the critically-undermedicated Jews? And please, when was the last time you read a Jane Austen novel that you mention her name in vain in this context, as if you are a great fan of hers or something.

- noga1

March 5, 2012 at 1:10pm

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

Honestly, Noga, has witchcraft soured your breakfast yoghurt, or what? I was going to mention Swift but I switched to Jane Austen because you are a dedicated reader of that author's work and I thought you'd appreciate that reference more. On the SJ -- I don't know, I thought I was reading it correctly and getting the line where the satire began. It was late last night.

- ironyroad

March 5, 2012 at 1:17pm

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

No, nothing soured my yoghurt this morning. In fact, I'm all out of yoghurt. I was only teasing about Jane Austen. Whatever happened to all that sunshine and fluffy clouds?

- noga1

March 5, 2012 at 1:29pm

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

I am reorienting my gaze toward them right now.

- ironyroad

March 5, 2012 at 1:39pm

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

Lucky you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBLnN4R_PM0

- noga1

March 5, 2012 at 1:44pm

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

An excellent editorial from the NY Times: "Iran, Israel and the United States" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/opinion/iran-israel-and-the-united-states.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

- arnon1

March 5, 2012 at 10:49pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close