EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Israel vs. Iran: The Truth Slips Out
Just days after the New York Times Magazine’s lurid cover story, “Israel Vs. Iran,” the Washington Post struck back with a two-fisted effort to win the “most dire prediction” contest. The Post’s foreign policy pundit David Ignatius wrote a widely-circulated column claiming inside information: U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.” The next day the Post’s front page headline warned ominously, “Israel: Iran Must Be Stopped Soon.”
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Both stories reported that the Obama administration opposes any Israeli action, just like the Bush administration before it. The risks to U.S. interests are incalculable, as the Pentagon and State Department have been telling us for years.
Yet both stories added a new note: Israel might strike without U.S. support or permission. “The administration appears to favor staying out of the conflict unless Iran hits U.S. assets,” Ignatius wrote.
Of course the U.S. is already in the conflict, as the Iranians know perfectly well. Israel’s ability to strike depends largely on its high-tech weaponry, paid for by the $3 billion a year coming from Washington. With that kind of money flowing -- plus U.S. diplomatic support, which many in Israel see as their last barrier against international isolation -- the Obama administration has powerful leverage to stop any Israeli action that threatens U.S. interests.
When the administration tells the Washington Post that the U.S. is unhappy but helpless, it’s obviously looking for deniability if the attack occurs. But it’s also a clear signal to the Israelis: Though we could stop you, so far we have not decided that we will. This is a major shift in the message coming from Washington.
Why now? Ignatius put it delicately: “Complicating matters is the 2012 presidential campaign, which has Republicans candidates clamoring for stronger U.S. support of Israel.” Obama, the Republicans, and the mass media all assume that a red light from the White House to the Israelis would hurt the president on Election Day.
Why should the voters punish a president for insisting that U.S. interests must come first and for preventing an attack that would probably cause a spike in gas prices?
The two WaPo articles offered an important clue. One mentioned Israeli warnings about “an existential threat to Israel.” the other called this “a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.”
For decades, American voters have been inundated with news stories reporting supposed threats to Israel’s security as if they were objective fact. Rarely do our mass media allow any questions about, much less objections to, the myth of Israel’s insecurity. At least two questions are urgent now:
Even if the Iranians did manage to make a handful of nuclear weapons, why should we believe they would ever use them against Israel? They know that Israel already has 100 to 200 nukes of its own, enough to destroy every major city in Iran, and is perfectly prepared to use them. Iranian leaders have not given any evidence that they’re interested in committing national suicide.
And why should we believe Israel was better off before the Arab Spring, when its neighbors were all dictatorships, breeding grounds for popular anger that could easily turn (or be manipulated) against outside enemies? Governments that better reflect public sentiment are more stable and reliable for their neighbors to deal with. In fact, the Arab Spring movement is having a moderating effect on Islamist politics, as both the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are now demonstrating.
Read the references to Israel’s insecurity in the two WaPo articles more closely, and a third question arises: Do Israelis leaders seriously believe that their national existence is threatened?
The front-pager says: “Israeli officials warn that beyond posing an existential threat to Israel, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon could trigger a regional nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East and alter Israel’s strategic position in the region.”
Since Israel brought nukes into the Middle East decades ago, its concern about a “regional nuclear arms race” is code for other Mideast nations getting nuclear capability. “Strategic position” is code for Israel’s current absolute military domination of the greater Middle East, symbolized by its sole possession of nukes. It’s that symbolic as well as very real domination, not its national existence, that Israel is at risk of losing.
“Symbolic” is the right word when it comes to nuclear weapons because Israel’s nukes don’t have any practical value. Israel doesn’t need to use its nukes; it has shown itself more than capable of winning any conventional war against its neighbors. And the U.S. has guaranteed that Israel will stay far ahead in the high-tech conventional arms race.
If Israel did use even one nuke against a conventional attack it would probably lose the last shred of its dwindling support around the world, including most of its support in the U.S., and end up isolated, a pariah in the international community. That’s the greatest nightmare for most Israelis.
The Israelis are considering an attack on Iran, fraught with immense dangers, so the Jewish state can keep its symbolic status as the region’s only superpower.
David Ignatius confirms this view in his reference to Israel’s supposed insecurity: “Israeli leaders are said to accept, and even welcome, the prospect of going it alone and demonstrating their resolve at a time when their security is undermined by the Arab Spring.”
Resolve to do what? To do whatever it takes to maintain military superiority. But superiority is useful only if it’s publicly demonstrated from time to time. Symbolism is the key to a sense of national power.
If these WaPo journalists are right -- and my forty years of studying the issue tells me they are -- what really makes Israeli leaders feel insecure is their fear of not having their power respected. To gain that respect, they’ll talk endlessly about their planning to attack Iran. Perhaps one day they’ll do it, as long as Obama doesn’t raise the red light.
The main thing holding him back is election-year anxiety of his own, fueled by the millions of voters who honestly believe that Israel’s existence is constantly in peril. Why shouldn’t they believe it, when the journalists they depend on for their information repeat that myth endlessly, while they hint at the full truth only in rare sentences that get lost amid the flood of words that evoke fear.
But how tragic that a president has to worry about voters punishing him if he puts U.S. interests above Israel’s desire to symbolize its military strength and resolve.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
102 Comments so far
Show AllI still think that the Iran-ruckus is a smokescreen behind which Israel is annexing all of the West Bank before the gullible US public notices. One telltale sign is that Mr. Netanyahu recently averred that Israel has occupied only a few percent of the West Bank, a gigantic lie designed to lull that same public into continued slumber. Meanwhile Mr. Obama, like the well-known Roman governor of Palestine is washing his hands by letting others decide on the fate of the world. That is leadership?
The Israeli government does not care about U.S. public opinion. The U.S. government does. The fate of the world is not at stake, this is political theater. "Do not concern yourself with the unemployment crisis, the housing crisis, the credit crisis, the environment, the horrible U.S. health care system, crumbling infrastructure, etc., etc., etc... concern yourself with the 'usual suspects(Iran), they are the 'real' threat to your future. Here, shut up America, we have larger problems than your future." That is what I see when I read articles about American "threats".
I do not understand why Iran, from the start, did not simply agree to abide by the same atomic weapons standards as Israel and with the same international inspection system. Although Israel would surely not agree this would lead many more people to reconsider their hostility to Iran.
I do not understand why Iran, from the start, did not simply agree to abide by the same atomic weapons standards as Israe~smitty88
where's this "the same" coming from? no one inspects israel's arsenal. after all, g_d does not expect the "chosen" to play by the same rule book.
"where's this "the same" coming from? no one inspects israel's arsenal. after all, g_d does not expect the "chosen" to play by the same rule book." I think that was the point, to call attention to the fact that Israel isn't covered by the rules. Many kinda know this but if that had been the call from the start and in a very public way, it might have cut some of the ground out from beneath the warmongers.
Why have we stopped asking why the American people shouldn't have the same health care that the US Congress gets or demanding that they not accept it? Making that point continually would help make it clear that our elected representatives are glad to be getting something that they won't give to the rest of us. These kinds of framing issues seem so obvious to me and yet apparent others are oblivious of their effective use.
smitty88:
Not sure of the point you're trying to make. Iran is under the IAEA inspection system and is a signatory to the NPT. Israel is not.
What is left unsaid in your comment, though hinted at, is that while Iran is a signatory state to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel is not.
What is left unsaid almost in every context, is that all signatory states, the US and Russia included are supposed to be legally bound to the effort of nuclear disarmament. Of course, this gets as much notice as the fact that the Federal Reserve is legally mandated to equally prioritize full employment, as well as inhibiting inflation. Funny how some laws are more equal than others, and the enforcers of the laws get away with murder, such as the NYPD murdering a suspect in front of his grandmother, in his home, over a bag of weed.*
So, too, the big crimes of War on False Pretense get ignored, the infraction of publicizing the details of that crime brings down torturous response.
*Bronx Narc Kills Unarmed Teen
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/feb/03/bronx_narc_kills_unarmed_teen
What planet do you live on? "atomic weapons standards as Israel"??? Are you kidding me? Israel's atomic weapons is huge and paid for by the US. They have never been found at any fault for anything because so many of their elite pay for our politicians...get a good book on the truth about Israel, the ME, American interests.
Maybe read Holy War or The History of Palestine.
I do wish people could recognize the danger posed by Israel's elitist beliefs, America's whorporate war, and the extreme lies perpetuated by the safely owned for them, MSM.
The obvious demise of this planet will be done by those oh so few jackasses calling all the shots. And here we sit, just bitching about it.
Looks like smitty88's sarcasm didn't come out clearly enough.
Exactly where is the sarcasm?
Oh. Had me fooled. You can't underestimate the level of logic used by some bloggers, so it wouldn't surprise me if smitty88 was serious.
Israel does not even admit to having nuclear weapons for Moses' sake. On top of which the Western world has accepted this fiction and enables the game of horror and terror to go on. A game for all, except those who suffer from it.
Is Israel open to inspection of arms? That's NEWS.
According to Bin Laden he bombed the Towers because of, "the Suppression of the Palestinian people."
Why can't Israel just get along with everyone? They have to get rid of the book You know the one that talks about "killing every man, women, child and beast of burden." from Sodom & Gomorrah, Jericho and the place where lot's wife was turned to pillar of salt so lot could copulate with his daughters. That's as bad as the 72 virgins.
They believe in savagery
Are you joking.? The inspectors that were sent to Israel were sent packing with a gun to their head. And we let that happen. We should have gone back with gun boats and blew their ass out of the water and then told them to open their sites. It is a bullshit game and we have been the losers.
Are you being facetious? Israel abides by no atomic weapons standards and has no international inspection system. Israel, in its malevolent mendacity, can get away with this but never Iran.
Smitty88, are you serious or is this a poor satirical joke? Israel is not only not a member of the NPT, does not have any IAEA inspections but even denies any existence of the 200-400 nukes that it possesses. This despite the fact you can Google map the Negev nuke enrichment centre's dome at Dimona, 13kms SE of the town of Dimona. Try it -it's in the middle of the desert and the dome and cooling towers stick out like a sore thumb.
the article is just window dressing for the american public.
israel has always used existential threats to its security as a rationale for attacking it's neighbors (iraq, syria, lebanon, gaza). it isn't surprising that they're using the same rhetoric as they prepare to expand the war in the middle east.
i wish chernus would look at this issue from a broader perspective and see that US and israeli interests are the same interests. that the empire is attempting to expand it's control over the oil fields in iran, after they destabilize the govt and replace it w/ one to their liking.
why hasn't obama checked alarmist israeli rhetoric ? b/c the MIC, the bankers and the oil companies all have a lot to gain in the long run. short term spikes in oil prices are just that short term consequences. once the american public sees US troops involved in the fight they'll rally around the flag as they do every time america becomes involved in a military conflict. this actually will benefit the president in the upcoming elections. plus, he can make his push for the necessity of switching to green energy as oil prices soar (more hollow words like in 08).
as to fears of the US economy spinning into a deeper recession, it's going to happen anyway. according to forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/18/will-greece-default-on-march-20/ - greek default will have serious ramifications to the global economy. the prospect of conflict in the ME will distract everyone from the real villains in the world - global bankers and oil companies....
...peace...
Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Great post.
I agree.
>>this actually will benefit the president in the upcoming elections.<<
Absolutely. His, and his party's cynicism, is palpable. Doesn't matter how many have to die as long as he can get his ass reelected. Same with the republicans (except for RP), all going around threatening to attack Iran from day one of their prospective presidency. If only there was a way to get "the 99%" to read a book once a decade or even anything other than the sports page in the as bad as it is MSM.
The U.S. has more nukes than those in the rest of the world. Israel has several hundred nukes in Dimona. Why wouldn't Iran feel vulnerable unless it has what we have? The answer: a nuclear free mideast and a nuclear free world. If not we'll blow up the planet.
A nuclear free Mideast has been seriously broached by countries in the region, and it is the most rational policy to defuse tensions and avoid yet another massive humanitarian disaster. It is also a non-starter, as the Israelis reject this out of hand. The price to pay for this intransigence? There is no price, as western governments, public intellectuals, and large media concerns regularly trumpet Israel's alleged security concerns, threaten Iran with war, and combine to slowly ratchet escalations towards inevitability. It is nothing short of astonishing that the exact power interests responsible for the Iraq disaster are this close to pulling off another one based on similar tacts of limiting options and publishing lies.
Obama administration and pentagon say attacking Iran would be a bad thing. Yet they sell/give bunker busters to Israel. Let the BS flow. Of course the $10+ / gal gas will be good for carbon emissions. .
I can remember years ago when Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would appear on MSNBC's Hardball and host Chris Matthews would refrain from actually asking questions of Netanyahu that might be construed as being of the hardball variety.
Give Tweety a break, Erroll!
You know that when he's in the presence of Manly Men, he finds it difficult to concentrate because of all those tingling sensations shooting up his thighs.
And the words 'existential threat to Israel' is code for existential scapegoat. There have never truly been existential threats to Israel, but there have been numerous existential scapegoats over the years in order to keep the $$$$ spigot flowing from Washington and keep the US and Israel military in a state of emergency. They are reaching a new level of destructiveness with this assault on the nation of Iran, there is even serious talk of dropping nuclear bombs on Iranian cities in order 'to save us from the fanatics in Iran'.
"And why should we believe Israel was better off before the Arab Spring, when its neighbors were all dictatorships, breeding grounds for popular anger that could easily turn (or be manipulated) against outside enemies? Governments that better reflect public sentiment are more stable and reliable for their neighbors to deal with."
Because those dictatorships were largely created by the Anglo-American Imperialists to facilitate the rape and plunder of that part of the world by multi-national corporations. It is much less expensive to buy off a small minority of the population, for example the house of Saud, with money, alcohol, drugs, women and luxury cars then it would be to pay the entire population of the region a fair price for their rapidly diminishing oil legacy.
The author's faith in democracy as a panacea strikes me as naive, patronizing and so 19th century. As if the locals would all become 'civilized' and share the values, aspirations and morals (or lack thereof) of the intellectuals in New York if they were only given some education and a chance to vote. It seems only natural that, if given a chance to freely express themselves, the people of the middle east would seek to reclaim their pride in both arab culture and Islam and would work together to expel the alien culture that has invaded them and seeks to perpetuate a dominance over them.
It pains me to resort to quoting a Hollywood movie, but this issue reminds me of the reminisces of chief Dan George:
"I wore this frock coat in Washington, before the war. We wore them because we belonged to the Five Civilized Tribes. We dressed ourself up like Abraham Lincoln. You know, we got to see the Secretary of the Interior. He said, "Boy! You boys sure look civilized!" He congratulated us, and he gave us medals for looking so civilized. We told him about how our land had been stolen. Our people were dying. When we finished, he shook our hands and said, "Endeavor to persevere." They stood us in a line--John Jumper, Junior McIntosh, Buffalo Hump, Jim Pockmark, and me. I'm Lone Watie. They took our pictures, and the newspapers said, "Indians Vow to Endeavor to Persevere." We thought about it for a long time. "Endeavor to persevere". And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union."
Now that is true democracy in action! Too bad it didn't work out better for the Native Americans. I wish the Muslims better luck.
Back in the day, we would play cowboys and Indians. I wonder, what is played in the middle east today? However, I really don't know what games the Dakotah children played.
I just published this as a comment to a different article, but it applies here as well.
An attack of Iran seems to have been planned for a while. The link below is to an article published in early Nov. 2011. Although the article is primarily about the UKs role in the planned military action against Iran, it states that Obama had wanted to wait until after the Nov. election before embarking on a new military venture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear
I never thought I would be supporting Ron Paul
Yeah, Ron Paul is looking better every day!
He has been saying the same thing for 30 years. It is a pity that we had to fall so far before people started to listen to him. But, its still not too late to right the ship of state - for us, and for everyone else on the planet.
No, that's just your vision getting worse.
I think Israel wants to attack Iran, knowing Iran is no threat and has no nuclear weapons program, because it needs to amp up the Israeli fear level (and make sure everyone in the region understands Israel is a militant aggressor that shouldn't be messed with).
When your government is in place because people are afraid of neighboring countries and oppressed Palestinians, you need to keep the people afraid so you can stay in power. Continual fear that remains at the same level becomes boring. The situation becomes commonplace. People begin to question the need for fear.
NO! DO NOT QUESTION! THERE IS A VERY REAL TERRIBLE NEW THREAT! AN ATOMIC ONE!
So, every few years, the Israeli government turns up the burner on the Iran issue, works it to a crescendo and then either bombs Iran and says they've reduced the threat, or back-burners the issue and redirects their focus to some new dummied-up threat to Israel's existence.
It's a lesson that Bush learned and why the FBI had to start using paid informants to manufacture terrorists. You can only yell the sky is falling for so long before people stop listening. Somethings gotta fall.
What USreal utters about Iran almost daily amounts to State Terrorism, which is what any attack would become, such as the asassinations of Iranian scientists and bomb attacks on Iran's infrastructure. Yet we never see such utterences and acts described in that correct manner--Why? The only personage that I'm aware of who uses the term State Terrorism to describe such behavior on a regular basis is Chomsky, although I'm sure there are a few others that do so, but liberals like Chernus never call a spade a spade, preferring to lie to themselves as Greenwald exposes in his most recent essay.
Just a matter of time before the racist colonial enterprise (Israel) ends.
This article is so rife with disinfo (intentional or otherwise), I am reminded of something one Iranian said in regard to one particularly disgusting American spy:
"It's not that he speaks lies, it's that each word he speaks is a lie!"
Specifically, what disinformation?
"...the Obama administration has powerful leverage to stop any Israeli action that threatens U.S. interests".
If only this statement were true. In fact, where Israel is concerned Obama has little leverage, if any. Israeli propaganda is so prevalent in our national media, within the neocon community, within the Departments of State and Defense and within our Congress, that anytime AIPAC calls upon us to enact some asinine resolution supporting Israel it's passed without regard to our own interests. One only needs to revisit our veto history as members of the U.N. National Security Council to see whose tail wags whose dog. Or, perhaps, it's worth noting how every national candidate (of either Party) with any hope of being elected president first must publicly avow his--and our nation's--unswerving allegiance to the State of Israel.
Israel is a nuclear armed nation of little more than 7 million people with remarkable--and unhealthy--influence over the governance of a nation of 300 million. Unfortunately it is the ignorant and overly-propagandized latter that have no idea as to the true nature of the relationship.
Israel is ALREADY at war with Iran. It has conducted military operations inside Iran for years. The question is how much further military action is going to be taken and to what extent will the US collaborate. This will depend, first, on the domestic political needs of Obama. If he needs a political boost he can use the tools he always says are on the table. War with Iran would raise his popularity with the Israeli government. That’s something all US politicians need. He can further shame his Nobel Peace prize by authorizing war crimes.
Hoa binh
Fall 2012:
Republican candidate - US will have war with Iran.
Obama - US will not have another costly, pointless war in the Mideast.
P.S. Didn't you just love the Super Bowl tribute to America's recent victory in Iraq.
Ira--don't drink the kool-ade from the US national security establishment. The US is the dog and Israel is the tail (though a very willing tail to be sure). When Israel does its master's bidding this time it will be pounded in a way it never has before and then the final rogue middle east government will be replaced.
Definitely interesting and valid points, Ira. Great article.
"If Israel did use even one nuke against a conventional attack it would probably lose the last shred of its dwindling support around the world, including most of its support in the U.S..."
Hardly. Israel could nuke New York and the NY Times last editorial would praise the "enlightened" action and sing huzzahs to the "special relationship between our great democracies" while the Congress would pass a unanimous resolution of praise and the US president (either party) would propose emergency legislation to replenish Israel's nuclear arsenal because surviving New York street gangs would now become an existential threat to the only democracy in the Middle East.
Praise God and Yahweh and pass the potatoes and gefiltafish!
The city of New York has the largest concentration of Jews on earth outside of Tel Aviv. NYC accounts for 15% of the entire Jewish population of the planet. I doubt the Israelis would nuke the place.
This article is right on...The oligarchs in Washington need to hear an opposing voice.
"Israel doesn’t need to use its nukes; it has shown itself more than capable of winning any conventional war against its neighbors*...not so.. it has lost consistently against hezbollah..it must prove itself somehow...,thus iran...
Once again Mr. Chernus is right on the money. Thanks for this article.
Since absolutely no one in the MSM ever discusses the potential US military losses, (at the risk of tiresomely repeating myself) please consider the following:
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy HAS NO DEFENCE and if that is correct, then the US getting a carrier group out of harm's way in the Persian Gulf (a "pond" in terms of anti-ship weapons) would be essential as a prelude to an attack that would involve Iranian retaliation. Even with the carrier groups removed, all US ships in the Gulf, naval or civilian, would face destruction and the massive loss of lives, perhaps into the thousands.
For anyone doubting the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had five Exocets and sank two ships - the Iranians have thousands of them.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
The Iranians can't compete with the US or Israeli military in the air, so they have focused their resources where they can do the most damage, i.e. anti-ship missiles, and that damage in the Gulf could exceed the casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan combined if a carrier group was trapped in the Gulf - there are 7000 seamen on a carrier.
The Pentagon always mentions its "reservations" about an Israeli attack, but the details of the loss of life and damage are never spelled out definitively.